Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
Congressional research reportDec 17, 2013
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
FY2013 Appropriations
(name redacted)
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
December 17, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R42525
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
Summary
The Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill includes funding for the
Department of the Interior (DOI), except for the Bureau of Reclamation, and for agencies within
other departments—including the Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and the
Indian Health Service within the Department of Health and Human Services. It also includes
funding for arts and cultural agencies, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and numerous
other entities.
Neither the House nor the Senate passed a regular appropriations bill for FY2013 for Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies. On July 10, 2012, the House Appropriations Committee
reported H.R. 6091 (H.Rept. 112-589) with $27.66 billion for Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies. If enacted, this level would have been a decrease of $1.57 billion from the FY2012
level of $29.23 billion and a decrease of $2.07 billion from the Administration’s FY2013 request
of $29.72 billion. While no regular appropriations bill was marked up or reported in the Senate,
the bipartisan leadership of the Senate Appropriations Interior Subcommittee released a draft bill,
together with a draft detailed funding table, on September 25, 2012. The draft would have
provided $29.72 billion for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, $5.3 million lower than
the President’s request but $489.8 million higher than the FY2012 appropriation and $2.06 billion
higher than the House committee-reported level in H.R. 6091.
Because no regular FY2013 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill was
enacted prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, Congress first included funds for these agencies
in a continuing appropriations resolution (CR, P.L. 112-175) through March 27, 2013. For
accounts in the Interior bill, the CR generally continued funding at a level that was 0.612% higher
than the FY2012 level.
P.L. 112-175 was superseded by a second law, the Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6). Enacted on March 26, 2013, the law provided full-year
continuing appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies through September 30,
2013. The Congressional Budget Office had estimated that, excluding the effects of sequestration,
the law contained $29.83 billion for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. However,
appropriations in the law were reduced under the sequester order of the President, issued on
March 1, 2013. That order implemented an across-the-board cut for (non-exempt, nondefense)
discretionary funding, which was calculated based on a reduction of each account of about 5.0%;
the accompanying report indicated a dollar amount of budget authority to be canceled from each
account pursuant to that across-the-board cut. Appropriations in the law also were reduced by an
across-the-board rescission of 0.2% under P.L. 113-6. The effect of these reductions on budgetary
resources of agencies, accounts, and programs within Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies initially was unclear, but was subsequently determined. For final FY2013
appropriations for agencies, reflecting the sequester and across-the-board rescission, see CRS
Report R43142, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 and FY2014
Appropriations.
Congressional Research Service
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
Duration of Appropriations........................................................................................................ 2
FY2013 ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Budget Control Act.............................................................................................................. 3
FY2013 Full-Year Continuing Appropriations, P.L. 113-6 ................................................. 4
FY2013 Part-Year Continuing Appropriations, P.L. 112-175 ............................................. 5
Earlier Action ...................................................................................................................... 6
Major Issues............................................................................................................................... 9
FY2004-FY2012...................................................................................................................... 10
Status of Bill ............................................................................................................................ 11
Title I: Department of the Interior.................................................................................................. 12
Bureau of Land Management .................................................................................................. 12
Overview ........................................................................................................................... 12
Management of Lands and Resources ............................................................................... 12
Construction ...................................................................................................................... 14
Land Acquisition ............................................................................................................... 15
Fish and Wildlife Service ........................................................................................................ 15
Endangered Species Funding ............................................................................................ 16
National Wildlife Refuge System ...................................................................................... 17
Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation .................................................................. 17
Cooperative Landscape Conservation and Adaptive Science ........................................... 18
Land Acquisition ............................................................................................................... 18
Wildlife Refuge Fund ........................................................................................................ 18
Multinational Species and Neotropical Migrants .............................................................. 19
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants ........................................................................................ 19
Coastal Impact Assistance Program .................................................................................. 20
Administrative Provisions ................................................................................................. 20
National Park Service .............................................................................................................. 21
Operation of the National Park System ............................................................................. 22
National Recreation and Preservation ............................................................................... 23
Historic Preservation ......................................................................................................... 24
Construction ...................................................................................................................... 24
Land Acquisition and State Assistance .............................................................................. 25
U.S. Geological Survey ........................................................................................................... 25
Ecosystems .............................................................................................................................. 27
Climate and Land Use Change ................................................................................................ 27
Energy, Minerals, and Environmental Health ................................................................... 28
Natural Hazards ................................................................................................................. 28
Water Resources ................................................................................................................ 29
Core Science Systems ....................................................................................................... 29
Administration and Enterprise Information ...................................................................... 30
Facilities ............................................................................................................................ 30
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement, and Office of Natural Resources Revenue ..................................................... 30
FY2013 Budget and Appropriations ................................................................................. 31
Offshore (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing................................................................................ 33
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement ....................................................... 35
Congressional Research Service
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
Regulation of Active Coal Mines ...................................................................................... 37
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund................................................................................. 38
Proposed Hardrock Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund ................................................. 39
Proposed Integration of Certain OSM Functions within BLM ......................................... 40
Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education ...................................................... 41
Contract Support ............................................................................................................... 42
Public Safety and Justice ................................................................................................... 43
Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) .................................................................................... 44
Construction ...................................................................................................................... 45
Departmental Offices and Department-Wide Programs .......................................................... 46
Office of Insular Affairs .................................................................................................... 46
Title II: Environmental Protection Agency .................................................................................... 47
Key Issues................................................................................................................................ 49
Wastewater and Drinking Water Infrastructure ................................................................. 50
Climate Change and Air Quality Regulatory Issues .......................................................... 51
Cleanup of Superfund Sites and Brownfields ................................................................... 53
Title III: Related Agencies ............................................................................................................. 55
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service .............................................................................. 55
Forest and Rangeland Research ........................................................................................ 56
State and Private Forestry.................................................................................................. 57
National Forest System ..................................................................................................... 57
Capital Improvement and Maintenance ............................................................................ 58
Land Acquisition ............................................................................................................... 58
Department of Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service ....................................... 59
Indian Health Services ...................................................................................................... 60
Indian Health Facilities ..................................................................................................... 62
Smithsonian Institution ............................................................................................................ 62
Salaries and Expenses ....................................................................................................... 63
Facilities Capital................................................................................................................ 63
Trust Funds ........................................................................................................................ 64
National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities ................... 64
NEA................................................................................................................................... 64
NEH................................................................................................................................... 65
Cross-Cutting Topics ..................................................................................................................... 66
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) .......................................................................... 66
Overview ........................................................................................................................... 66
Land Acquisition ............................................................................................................... 68
Grants to States.................................................................................................................. 69
Other Purposes .................................................................................................................. 69
Wildland Fire Management ..................................................................................................... 70
Wildfire Preparedness ....................................................................................................... 71
Wildfire Suppression ......................................................................................................... 71
Other Wildfire Operations ................................................................................................. 71
FLAME Funding ............................................................................................................... 72
Five-Year Appropriations History.................................................................................................. 72
Congressional Research Service
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
Figures
Figure 1. Appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, by Major Title,
FY2008-FY2012 ......................................................................................................................... 76
Tables
Table 1. Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2004-FY2012 ............ 11
Table 2. Status of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2013 ........... 11
Table 3. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), FY2012-FY2013 ............ 12
Table 4. Appropriations for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), FY2012-FY2013 ................... 16
Table 5. Appropriations for the National Park Service (NPS), FY2012-FY2013 .......................... 21
Table 6. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), FY2012-FY2013 .................... 26
Table 7. Appropriations for the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
(BSEE), FY2012-FY2013 .......................................................................................................... 32
Table 8. Appropriations for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), FY2012FY2013 ....................................................................................................................................... 32
Table 9. Appropriations for the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR), FY2012FY2013 ....................................................................................................................................... 33
Table 10. Appropriations for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSM), FY2012-FY2013 ........................................................................................................... 36
Table 11. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Bureau of Education
(BIE), FY2012-FY2013.............................................................................................................. 41
Table 12. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
FY2012-FY2013 ......................................................................................................................... 48
Table 13. Appropriations for the Forest Service (FS), FY2012-FY2013 ....................................... 56
Table 14. Appropriations for the Indian Health Service (IHS), FY2012-FY2013 ......................... 59
Table 15. Appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution (SI), FY2012-FY2013 ......................... 62
Table 16. Appropriations for the Arts and Humanities, FY2012-FY2013 ..................................... 65
Table 17. Appropriations for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF),
FY2008-FY2013 ......................................................................................................................... 67
Table 18. Appropriations for FS and DOI Wildland Fire Management, FY2012-FY2013 ........... 70
Table 19. Appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,
FY2008-FY2013 ......................................................................................................................... 73
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 77
Congressional Research Service
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
Introduction
The annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill includes funding for
agencies and programs in three separate federal departments, as well as numerous related
agencies and bureaus. It provides funding for Department of the Interior (DOI) agencies (except
for the Bureau of Reclamation, funded in Energy and Water Development appropriations laws),
many of which manage land and other natural resource or regulatory programs. The bill also
provides funds for agencies in two other departments—the Forest Service (FS) in the Department
of Agriculture, and the Indian Health Service (IHS) in the Department of Health and Human
Services—as well as funds for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Further, the
annual bill includes funding for arts and cultural agencies, such as the Smithsonian Institution, the
National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Endowment for the Humanities, and for
numerous other entities and agencies.
Prior to FY2006, the appropriations laws for Interior and Related Agencies provided funds for
several activities within the Department of Energy (DOE), including research, development, and
conservation programs; the Naval Petroleum Reserves; and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
However, at the outset of the 109th Congress, these DOE programs were transferred to the
jurisdiction of the House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees covering energy and water, to
consolidate their jurisdiction over DOE.1 These programs currently are funded in the annual
Energy and Water Development appropriations bill. At the same time, jurisdiction over the EPA
and several smaller entities was moved to the House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees
covering Interior and related agencies,2 and they are now funded in the annual Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. This change resulted from the abolition
of the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban
Development, and Independent Agencies, which previously had jurisdiction over EPA.
Since FY2006, appropriations laws for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies have
contained three primary titles. This report is organized along these lines. The first section (Title I)
provides information on Interior agencies; the second section (Title II) discusses EPA; and the
third section (Title III) addresses other agencies, programs, and entities. A fourth section of this
report discusses selected cross-cutting topics that encompass more than one agency.
Entries in this report are for major agencies (e.g., the National Park Service) and cross-cutting
issues (e.g., Wildland Fire Management) that receive funding in the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies appropriations bill. For each agency or issue, we discuss some of the key
funding changes that appear to be of interest to Congress based on hearings on agency budgets
and statements in Appropriations Committee reports, among other sources. We also address
related policy issues that occur in the context of considering appropriations legislation.
Appropriations are complex, and not all issues are summarized in this report. For example,
budget submissions for some agencies number several hundred pages and contain innumerable
funding, programmatic, and legislative changes for congressional consideration. Further,
appropriations laws provide funds for numerous accounts, activities, and subactivities, and the
accompanying explanatory statements provide additional directives and other important
1
2
These panels are now called the Subcommittees on Energy and Water Development.
These panels are now called the Subcommittees on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.
Congressional Research Service
1
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
information. For information on programs funded in the bill but not directly discussed in this
report, please contact the key policy staff members listed at the end of the report.
In general, in this report the term appropriations represents total funds available, including
regular annual and supplemental appropriations, as well as rescissions, transfers, and deferrals,
but excludes mandatory spending authorities. The House Committee on Appropriations is the
primary source of the funding figures used throughout the report. Other sources of information
include the Senate Committee on Appropriations, agency budget justifications, and the
Congressional Record. In the tables throughout this report, some columns of funding figures do
not match the precise totals provided due to rounding.
Duration of Appropriations
Appropriations for accounts within annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
appropriations laws are available to be obligated for differing periods of time, depending on the
nature and needs of the programs and activities funded. In general, appropriations in these laws
are available only for the fiscal year covered by the act, unless otherwise specified. In recent
practice, Interior appropriations laws have provided such one-year appropriations for several
accounts. For instance, in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74), the
appropriation to the National Park Service for its National Recreation and Preservation account
was for FY2012 only, as the law did not specify a different period of availability: “For expenses
necessary to carry out recreation programs, natural programs, cultural programs, heritage
partnership programs, environmental compliance and review, international park affairs, and grant
administration, not otherwise provided for, $59,975,000.”
However, many accounts within the annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
appropriations laws have contained appropriations for longer periods of availability, involving
multiple fiscal years. For example, the appropriation in P.L. 112-74 to the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement for its Regulation and Technology account was provided
for FY2012 and FY2013. The law provided, in part: “For necessary expenses to carry out the
provisions of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public Law 95–87, as
amended, $122,950,000, to remain available until September 30, 2013.” For accounts available
for two years, appropriations may be carried over from the first fiscal year to the second, and
must be obligated by the end of the second year.
Many other accounts have contained appropriations that were available for obligation without
fiscal year limitation, often referred to as “no-year appropriations.” Such appropriations typically
were “to remain available until expended.” For these accounts, appropriations may be carried
over from fiscal year to fiscal year with no deadline for obligation. In P.L. 112-74, the
appropriation to the Fish and Wildlife Service for its Construction account provides an example
of no-year appropriations: “For construction, improvement, acquisition, or removal of buildings
and other facilities required in the conservation, management, investigation, protection, and
utilization of fish and wildlife resources, and the acquisition of lands and interests therein;
$23,088,000, to remain available until expended.”3
3
For information on the duration of appropriations, see U.S. General Accounting Office (now U.S. Government
Accountability Office), Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, 3rd ed., vol. I, GAO-04-261SP, January 2004, pp. 53 through 5-9, on the agency’s website at http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/d04261sp.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
2
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
FY2013
Budget Control Act4
FY2013 discretionary appropriations were considered in the context of the Budget Control Act of
2011 (BCA, P.L. 112-25), which established discretionary spending limits for FY2012-FY2021.
The BCA also tasked a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to develop a federal deficit
reduction plan for Congress and the President to enact by January 15, 2012. Because deficit
reduction legislation was not enacted by that date, an automatic spending reduction process
established by the BCA was triggered; this process consisted of a combination of sequestration
and lower discretionary spending caps, initially scheduled to begin on January 2, 2013. The “joint
committee” sequestration process for FY2013 required the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) to implement across-the-board spending cuts at the account and program level to achieve
equal budget reductions from both defense and nondefense funding at a percentage to be
determined, under terms specified in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985,5 as amended by the BCA.
The American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA, P.L. 112-240), enacted on January 2, 2013, made a
number of significant changes to the procedures in the BCA. First, the date for the joint
committee sequester to be implemented was delayed for two months, until March 1, 2013.
Second, the dollar amount of the joint committee sequester was reduced by $24 billion. Third,
statutory caps on discretionary spending for FY2013 (and FY2014) were lowered.6
Pursuant to the BCA, as amended by ATRA, President Obama ordered that the joint committee
sequester be implemented on March 1, 2013.7 The accompanying OMB report indicated a dollar
amount of budget authority to be canceled from each account containing non-exempt funds.8
Because the sequester was implemented at the time that a temporary continuing resolution was in
force, the reductions were calculated on an annualized basis and were to be apportioned
throughout the remainder of the fiscal year.9 The sequester ultimately was applied at the program,
project, and activity (PPA) level within each account, under subsequent OMB guidance.
4
This section was prepared with the assistance of (name redacted), Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process,
7-.....
5
BBEDCA, Title II of P.L. P.L. 99-177, 2 U.S.C. 900-922. For information on the Budget Control Act, see CRS
Report R41965, The Budget Control Act of 2011, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).
6
For further information on the changes to the BCA procedures made by ATRA, see CRS Report R42949, The
American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012: Modifications to the Budget Enforcement Procedures in the Budget Control
Act, by (name redacted)
7
White House, President Obama, Sequestration Order for Fiscal Year 2013 Pursuant to Section 251A of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, As Amended, March 1, 2013, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/
default/files/2013sequestration-order-rel.pdf.
8
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, OMB Report to the Congress on the Joint
Committee Sequestration for Fiscal Year 2013, March 1, 2013, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/
files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fy13ombjcsequestrationreport.pdf.
9
For general information on continuing resolutions, see CRS Report R42647, Continuing Resolutions: Overview of
Components and Recent Practices, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
3
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
FY2013 Full-Year Continuing Appropriations, P.L. 113-6
No regular FY2013 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill was enacted
prior to the beginning of the fiscal year on October 1, 2012. Accordingly, Congress first included
funds for these agencies in a continuing appropriations resolution (CR, P.L. 112-175) through
March 27, 2013. (See below under “FY2013 Part-Year Continuing Appropriations, P.L. 112-175.)
This part-year CR was superseded by the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations
Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6). Enacted on March 26, 2013, the law provided full-year continuing
appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies through September 30, 2013.
However, appropriations provided in the FY2012 Interior appropriations law (Division E, P.L.
112-74) that had multi-year or no-year availability maintain a comparable period of availability
for the new FY2013 funds.
The Congressional Budget Office had estimated that, excluding the effects of sequestration, P.L.
113-6 contained $29.83 billion for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. However,
appropriations in the law were reduced under the sequester order of the President, issued on
March 1, 2013. That order implemented an across-the-board cut for (non-exempt, nondefense)
discretionary funding, which was calculated based on a reduction of each account of about 5.0%;
the accompanying report indicated a dollar amount of budget authority to be canceled from each
account pursuant to that across-the-board cut. In addition, appropriations in P.L. 113-6 were
reduced by an across-the-board rescission of 0.2% under P.L. 113-6.The effect of these reductions
on budgetary resources of agencies, accounts, and programs within Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies initially was unclear, pending guidance from OMB as to how they would be
applied. For this reason, sections of this report on agencies in the Interior bill were not updated to
reflect final FY2013 appropriations for accounts and programs.10 For information on final
appropriations for agencies for FY2013, reflecting the sequester and the across-the-board
rescission, see CRS Report R43142, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 and
FY2014 Appropriations.
Under P.L. 113-6, most accounts in the Interior bill were funded at the FY2012 level, under the
terms and conditions in the FY2012 appropriations law (Division E, P.L. 112-74, including the
across-the-board rescission of 0.16%). This provision extended for FY2013 many of the
provisions in the FY2012 law that stipulated or limited agency authority during FY2012.
However, exceptions to this general approach, often referred to as “anomalies,” were provided for
the appropriations for about two dozen accounts within Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies. For instance, funding anomalies were included for certain accounts within DOI
agencies, EPA, FS, IHS, and the Smithsonian Institution, among other agencies. Again, the
President’s sequester order of March 1, 2013, is being applied to the funding in P.L. 113-6.
Other provisions of P.L. 113-6 would rescind previous appropriations or authorities. Specifically,
the law rescinded $7.5 million in funding for DOI Wildland Fire Management; various levels of
funding for specified EPA accounts/programs; and $30.0 million in contract authority for
acquisitions under the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
10
The body of this report focuses on the FY2013 regular appropriations bill reported by the House Appropriations
Committee, H.R. 6091, as this was the only formal congressional action on a regular Interior appropriations bill.
Congressional Research Service
4
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
Still other provisions in P.L. 113-6 affected particular authorities and activities of agencies in the
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. Among others, these provisions
made changes regarding the collection of mining claim maintenance fees; extended the authority
of national heritage areas to receive federal assistance; provided authority for the EPA
Administrator to assess pesticide registration service fees under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); clarified the amounts available to fund contract support
costs of the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs; extended the authority for the
Forest Service for cost recovery for processing rights-of-way and other special use authorizations;
and banned, for 180 days, funds in the law from being used for enforcement, with regard to any
farm, of EPA’s Spill, Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure rule.
The law also contained two reporting requirements. First, it gave many departments and major
agencies 30 days following enactment to submit plans to the Appropriations Committees
specifying how funds would be allocated below the account level. These plans are to be at the
program, project, or activity level, or at a greater level of detail. Further, they are to reflect the
reductions made under the sequester order of the President. Second, the law required OMB to
submit to the Appropriations Committees monthly reports (through November 1, 2013) on
FY2013 obligations incurred by each department/agency. The reports are to compare obligations
in FY2013 with obligations during the same period in FY2012.
FY2013 Part-Year Continuing Appropriations, P.L. 112-175
Previously, a part-year CR was enacted for roughly the first half of the fiscal year (through March
27, 2013). Under P.L. 112-175, accounts in the Interior bill were generally funded at a level that
was 0.612% higher than the FY2012 level.
Exceptions to this level of funding were provided for Wildland Fire Management by the
Department of the Interior and the Forest Service. Section 140 of the law provided a rate of
operations of $726.5 million for DOI Wildland Fire Management. This amount was equivalent to
the FY2013 President’s budget request (excluding the request for the FLAME account). It also
contained $23.0 million for DOI to repay accounts from which funds were transferred in FY2012
to suppress wildfires. Section 141 provided a rate of operations of $1.97 billion for FS Wildland
Fire Management. This was equivalent to the FY2013 President’s budget request (excluding the
request for the FLAME account). It also contained $400.0 million for the FS to repay accounts
from which funds were transferred in FY2012 to suppress wildfires.
In other respects, the part-year CR was similar, although not identical, to the full-year CR that is
currently in effect. For instance, P.L. 112-175 also generally provided funding at the account
level, under the terms and conditions as contained in the FY2012 Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies appropriations law. It directed departments and agencies to report to the
Appropriations Committees on how funds would be allocated below the account level. It further
directed OMB to submit monthly reports on FY2013 obligations by each department and agency.
It also did not affect the application of a sequester order by the President.
Sections 142-144 of P.L. 112-175 contained provisions affecting particular programs or activities
of agencies in the Interior bill. Section 142 amended the funding formula in the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) that determines payments to eligible coal production
states from the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. This change in the formula would reverse
Congressional Research Service
5
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
the potential effect that the new limitation on payments to “certified” states would have on the
payments that “noncertified” states receive.11 Section 100125 of the Moving Ahead for Progress
in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21, P.L. 112-141) included a new $15 million annual limitation on
payments to certified states as an offset for federal surface transportation spending. Payments to
certified states are linked in existing law under SMCRA to a portion of the payments that
noncertified states receive, which had raised concern among some Members of Congress and
affected states.
Section 143 extended the authority of the Forest Service for cost recovery for processing rightsof-way and other special use authorizations (through March 27, 2013).12 The Administration had
sought permanent cost recovery authority in its FY2013 budget request.13
Section 144 amended FIFRA to extend the authorization for EPA to collect and expend pesticide
registration fees (through March 27, 2013). It also amended the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to continue the existing prohibition on EPA’s collection of pesticide
tolerance fees (through March 27, 2013). The FY2013 President’s budget request had
recommended the reauthorization of pesticide registration fees, but at increased levels to pay a
greater portion of EPA’s program operating costs in order to reduce the reliance on discretionary
appropriations. The CR reauthorized the fees at existing rates under current law in FIFRA and
FFDCA. Subsequently, the Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act of 2012 (P.L. 112177) reauthorized pesticide registration fees and continued the prohibition on pesticide tolerance
fees through FY2017, and revised the existing fee structure.
Earlier Action
Administration’s Request
For FY2013, the Administration requested a total of $29.72 billion for Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies, an increase of $495.1 million (1.7%) from the FY2012 level of $29.23 billion.
The Administration proposed level funding for some agencies, but increases or decreases for
others. Additional funds were proposed for the Forest Service, $255.2 million (6%); Indian Health
Service, $115.9 million (3%); Smithsonian Institution, $46.6 million (6%); U.S. Geological
Survey (DOI), $34.5 million (3%); and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (DOI),
$20.0 million (26%). The proposed decreases included the Fish and Wildlife Service (DOI), with
$128.0 million (9%) less; Environmental Protection Agency, $104.9 million (1%) less; and Office
of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (DOI), $9.5 million (6%) less.
11
Noncertified states have not met all of their coal reclamation priorities, whereas certified states have met all of their
coal reclamation priorities and may use their payments for the reclamation of hardrock mining sites and other related
purposes.
12
The FS Special Use Program processes applications and issues authorizations to use the federal lands within its
jurisdiction for a wide variety of purposes. There have been discussions about whether the FS is properly issuing
authorizations, monitoring special use sites, and charging fees based on the fair market value. For more information,
see USDA OIG, Forest Service Administration of Special Use Program, June 2011, http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/
08601-55-SF.pdf.
13
See FS Chief Tom Tidwell’s testimony for U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee
on Energy and Mineral Resources, Oversight Hearing on “Effect of the President’s FY 2013 Budget and Legislative
Proposals for the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service’s Energy and Minerals Programs on
Private Sector Job Creation, Domestic Energy and Minerals Production and Deficit Reduction,” 112th Cong., 2nd Sess.,
March 20, 2012, p. 6.
Congressional Research Service
6
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
House Bill as Reported by the House Committee on Appropriations
The House Appropriations Committee reported a regular appropriations bill for Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies, but Congress did not take subsequent action on an FY2013
regular appropriations bill. As reported by the House Committee on Appropriations, H.R. 6091
(H.Rept. 112-589) contained $27.66 billion for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for
FY2013. This would have been a decrease of $1.57 billion (5.4%) from the FY2012 level of
$29.23 billion. The committee-reported bill included funding at the same level as FY2012 for
some agencies, such as the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement, and the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement.
For other agencies, the bill would have increased funds over FY2012. The proposed additional
amounts were $186.9 million (4.3%) for the Indian Health Service, $86.0 million (1.9%) for the
Forest Service, and $36.8 million (1.5%) for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The committeereported bill proposed decreases from FY2012 for still other agencies, for instance, $1.39 billion
(16.5%) less for the Environmental Protection Agency, $316.6 million (21.5%) less for the Fish
and Wildlife Service, $134.4 million (5.2%) less for the National Park Service, and $101.0
million (9.5%) less for the U.S. Geological Survey.
The committee-reported bill would have been a decrease of $2.07 billion (6.9%) from the
Administration’s FY2013 request of $29.72 billion. The bill would have provided higher levels of
funding for a few major agencies relative to the Administration’s request, notably an additional
$71.0 million (1.6%) for the Indian Health Service, $41.4 million (1.6%) for the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, and $9.5 million (6.7%) for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement.
However, the bill would have provided most major agencies with less funding than under the
Administration’s request, including $1.29 billion (15.5%) less for the Environmental Protection
Agency, $188.6 million (14.0%) less for the Fish and Wildlife Service, $169.2 million (3.5%) less
for the Forest Service, $135.5 million (12.3%) less for the U.S. Geological Survey, $133.5 million
(5.2%) less for the National Park Service, and $67.7 million (7.9%) less for the Smithsonian
Institution.
The House committee-reported bill and accompanying report addressed diverse issues affecting
multiple agencies. Some of the broader issues addressed in bill or report language are covered in
relevant sections throughout this report, while others are discussed below.
H.R. 6091 as reported by committee would have continued a provision in the FY2012 law to
require DOI agencies, EPA, FS, and IHS to report quarterly to the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees on balances of appropriations. The reports were to identify balances
that are uncommitted, committed, and unobligated for each program and activity. In support of
the provision for FY2012, the House Appropriations Committee had expressed interest in
knowing not only what levels of funding remain from previous years, but the source year of those
funds, in order to ascertain whether appropriations have been provided in excess of need or
whether administrative inefficiencies have impeded the expenditure of funds.14
Other reporting requirements were included in the committee report on H.R. 6091. For instance,
the House committee sought to continue a reporting requirement from FY2012 pertaining to the
costs of litigation related to agency actions. It directed DOI agencies, EPA, and FS to report to the
Appropriations Committees, and make publicly available, information on payments of attorney
14
H.Rept. 112-151 on H.R. 2584, pp. 5-6.
Congressional Research Service
7
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).15 The House Committee
expressed concern that the costs of litigation are shifting agency funding away from priority
programs and that agencies are unable to account for these costs. The information was to include
the amount of program funds used and the names and hourly rates of fee recipients, among other
information. The committee also directed these agencies to report the same information for nonEAJA settlements with litigants.16
The committee-reported bill would have prohibited funds from being used for the National Ocean
Policy developed under Executive Order 13547. It would have required the President to report to
the Appropriations Committees, no later than 60 days following the submission of the President’s
FY2014 budget request, on FY2011 and FY2012 expenditures related to the policy. Expenditures
were to be provided by agency, account, and subaccount and were to reflect the costs of
developing, administering, and implementing the policy. Further, the President was to identify, in
the FY2014 request, funding for implementing the policy. The committee expressed that the
provision was intended to allow Congress “to ascertain the potentially far-reaching impacts of
this new policy ... and to direct the Administration to fully account for Federal funding spent to
date.”17
The bill also contained a provision to extend mandatory funding for the Payments in Lieu of
Taxes Program (PILT) for FY2013. However, in light of the enactment of a provision providing a
one-year extension of the mandatory funding for PILT (in P.L. 112-141), the Congressional
Budget Office no longer scores H.R. 6091 with the effects of the PILT extension.18
The report of the House Appropriations Committee contained additional views,
recommendations, and direction affecting multiple agencies. For instance, the committee asserted
that at least 51 agencies or programs within the bill (as reported) “remain unauthorized or have an
expired Congressional authorization of appropriations.” The committee recommended a total
appropriation of approximately $6 billion for these agencies and programs, but expressed that for
some “unauthorized programs” it had limited or discontinued funding for FY2013 and that it
might continue to do so in the future. The committee urged the authorizing committees to
expeditiously reauthorize these agencies and programs and encouraged interested parties to work
with the authorizing committees on securing authorizations.19 An authorizing measure can
establish, continue, or modify an agency or program for a fixed or indefinite period of time. It
also may set forth the duties and functions of an agency or program, its organizational structure,
and the responsibilities of agency or program officials. Authorizing legislation also authorizes the
enactment of appropriations for an agency or program. The amount authorized to be appropriated
may be specified for each fiscal year or may be indefinite (providing “such sums as may be
15
28 U.S.C. §2412; 5 U.S.C. §504. For more information on the payment of attorneys’ fees by agencies, see CRS
Report 94-970, Awards of Attorneys’ Fees by Federal Courts and Federal Agencies, by (name redacted), or contact
Vivian Chu at 7-.....
16
H.Rept. 112-589 on H.R. 6091, pp. 6-7.
17
H.Rept. 112-589 on H.R. 6091, p. 10. For information on the National Ocean Policy, see the Administration’s
website at http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/oceans.
18
CBO estimated the cost of the PILT extension at $398.0 million when H.R. 6091 was ordered reported by the
Committee on House Appropriations (June 27, 2012). See H.Rept. 112-589 on H.R. 6091, pp. 164-165. For further
information on PILT, see CRS Report RL31392, PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified, by (name red
acted).
19
H.Rept. 112-589 on H.R. 6091, pp. 7-8.
Congressional Research Service
8
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
necessary”). The authorization of appropriations is intended to provide guidance regarding the
appropriate amount of funds to carry out the authorized activities of an agency.20
Senate Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
The Senate Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies held hearings on appropriations requests of several agencies. While no bill to
appropriate funds for FY2013 was marked up and reported by the Senate committee, on
September 25, 2012, the bipartisan leadership of the subcommittee released a draft FY2013 bill
and a draft detailed funding table.21 The draft contained $29.72 billion for Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies, $5.3 million (<0.1%) lower than the President’s request but $489.8 million
(1.7%) higher than the FY2012 appropriation and $2.06 billion (7.4%) higher than the House
committee-reported level in H.R. 6091. The Senate subcommittee draft would have provided
higher levels of funding than the House committee-reported bill for nearly every major agency,
with exceptions being the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Indian Health Service, and DOI Department-Wide Programs (in particular,
Wildland Fire Management).
Major Issues
Congress typically debates a variety of funding and policy issues when considering each year’s
regular appropriations legislation. Recent issues have included regulatory actions of the
Environmental Protection Agency, energy development onshore and offshore, wildland fire
fighting, royalty relief, Indian trust fund management, climate change, DOI science programs,
endangered species, wild horse and burro management, and agency reorganizations. Other issues
have included appropriate funding levels for Bureau of Indian Affairs law enforcement and
education; Indian Health Service construction and contract health services; wastewater/drinking
water needs; the arts; land acquisition through the Land and Water Conservation Fund; and the
Superfund program.
Among the major issues that arose during hearings and debates on FY2013 appropriations and on
earlier appropriations bills, which are discussed in subsequent sections of this report, are (in
alphabetical order) the following:
•
Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, especially the adequacy
of funding to meet state and local wastewater and drinking water needs. These
state revolving funds provide seed money for state loans to communities for
wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects. (For more information, see
the section of this report on “Title II: Environmental Protection Agency.”)
•
Endangered Species, including the provision or elimination of funding for the
addition of new species for protection (listing) under the Endangered Species Act
and designation of their critical habitat. (For more information, see the “Fish and
Wildlife Service” section in this report.)
20
This text on authorizing measures is derived from CRS Report RS20371, Overview of the AuthorizationAppropriations Process, by (name redacted)
21
The draft bill, draft detailed funding table, and a related press release, are on the website of the Senate
Appropriations Committee at http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm.
Congressional Research Service
9
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
•
EPA Regulatory Actions, notably whether to provide or restrict funding for
implementation of pending and promulgated regulations that cut across various
environmental pollution control statutes, including those that address greenhouse
gas emissions. (For more information, see the section of this report on “Title II:
Environmental Protection Agency.”)
•
Indian Health Service, particularly the appropriate level of funding for new
programs included in the reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act. (For more information, see the section of this report on “Department of
Health and Human Services: Indian Health Service.”)
•
Land Acquisition, including the amount of funding for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund for federal land acquisition and for the state grant program,
and the extent to which the fund should be used for activities not involving land
acquisition. (For more information, see the “Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF)” section in this report.)
•
Outer Continental Shelf Leasing, particularly preleasing and leasing activities in
offshore areas and the appropriate level of funding for agencies to address
regulatory, safety, and compliance issues related to development of energy and
minerals resources in the Outer Continental Shelf. (For more information, see the
section of this report on the “Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, and Office of Natural
Resources Revenue.”)
•
Superfund, notably the adequacy of proposed funding to meet hazardous waste
cleanup needs, and whether to continue using general Treasury revenues to fund
the account or reinstate a tax on industry that originally paid for most of the
program. (For more information, see the section of this report on “Title II:
Environmental Protection Agency.”)
FY2004-FY2012
Table 1 shows appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2004FY2012. The FY2012 appropriation represented a $1.90 billion increase (7.0%) over the FY2004
level in current dollars, and a $2.87 billion decrease (8.9%) in constant dollars.22 See Table 19 at
the end of this report for a detailed budgetary history (by agency) for FY2008-FY2012.
Funding for earlier years is not readily available due to changes in the makeup of the Interior
appropriations bill. Further, although full-year continuing funding has been enacted for FY2013,
the effect of reductions under the President’s sequester order of March 1, 2013, remains unclear.
For these reasons, Table 1 covers the nine-year period from FY2004 to FY2012.
22
These calculations use the Congressional Budget Office’s inflation projections of 1.5% for 2011 and 1.2% for 2012.
Congressional Research Service
10
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
Table 1. Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2004-FY2012
($ in billions)
FY2009 FY2009 FY2009
FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 Omnibus Stimulus Total FY2010 FY2011 FY2012
Current
Dollars
27.33
27.02
25.94
27.40
28.42
27.59
10.95
38.79a
32.32
29.61
29.23
Constant
2011 Dollarsb
32.10
30.72
28.56
29.31
29.75
28.62
11.36
40.24a
33.20
29.97
29.23
Note: These figures exclude permanent budget authorities, and generally do not reflect scorekeeping
adjustments. They generally reflect rescissions and supplemental appropriations to date, except that the FY2006
figure does not reflect supplementals. The FY2007 figure includes $425.0 million for Secure Rural Schools.
a.
These figures are the sum of the FY2009 omnibus and FY2009 stimulus appropriations, plus an additional
$250.0 million in wildland fire appropriations included in P.L. 111-32.
b.
These figures are based on the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO’s) inflation projections of 1.5% for 2011
and 1.2% for 2012, at http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12316.
Status of Bill
Table 2 reflects action on FY2013 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations
legislation. H.R. 6091, which was not enacted, contained regular appropriations for Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies. P.L. 112-175 provided part-year continuing appropriations
through March 27, 2013, and P.L. 113-6 provided full-year continuing appropriations through
September 30, 2013.
Table 2. Status of Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations, FY2013
Subcommittee
Markup
House
06/20/12
—
—
Senate
H. Com.
Report
House
Passage
—
H.R.
6091
(H.Rept.
112-589);
07/10/12
—
—
H.J.Res.
117
09/13/12
—
—
—
Congressional Research Service
H.R. 933
03/06/13
S. Com. Senate
Report Passage
—
—
—
H.J.Res.
117
09/22/12
—
H.R. 933
03/20/13
Conference or
Amendment
Exchange
Conf.
Report
House
Senate
Public
Law
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
H.J.Res.
117
09/28/12
P.L. 112175
—
H.R. 933
03/21/13
House
Agreed to
Senate
Amendment
—
H.R. 933
03/26/13
P.L. 113-6
11
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
Title I: Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management23
Overview
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages approximately 248 million acres of public
land for diverse and sometimes conflicting uses, such as energy and minerals development,
livestock grazing, recreation, and preservation. The agency also is responsible for about 700
million acres of federal subsurface mineral estate throughout the nation, and supervises mineral
operations on an estimated 56 million acres of Indian Trust lands.
For FY2013, the House Appropriations Committee approved $1.074 billion for BLM, a $39.7
million decrease (4%) from the FY2012 appropriation ($1.114 billion) and a $34.2 million (3%)
decrease from the Administration’s FY2013 request ($1.108 billion). Table 3 identifies funding
for BLM accounts.
Table 3. Appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), FY2012-FY2013
($ in millions)
FY2012
Approp.
FY2013
Request
FY2013 House
Comm.
Report
946.1
932.7
927.4
3.6
0
0
Bureau of Land Management
Management of Lands and Resources
Construction
Land Acquisition
22.3
33.6
6.7
Oregon and California Grant Lands
111.9
112.0
110.0
Range Improvements
10.0
10.0
10.0
Service Charges, Deposits, and
Forfeituresa
0
0
0
Miscellaneous Trust Funds and
Permanent Operating Funds
19.7
19.7
19.7
1,113.5
1,108.0
1,073.9
Total Appropriations
a.
The figures of “0” are a result of an appropriation matched by offsetting fees.
Management of Lands and Resources
Management of Lands and Resources includes funds for an array of BLM land programs,
including protection, recreational use, improvement, development, disposal, and general BLM
administration. For this account, the FY2013 House committee-reported level was $927.4
million, $18.7 million less than the FY2012 appropriation ($946.1 million) and $5.4 million less
than the Administration’s FY2013 request ($932.7 million). The House Committee supported
various increases and decreases relative to FY2012 for activities and programs funded by this
account. Among the committee-supported increases were funds for managing wildlife, range, and
energy and minerals and for resource management planning, as noted below.
23
For more information on BLM funding, contact (name redacted) at 7-.....
Congressional Research Service
12
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
•
Wildlife management would have increased by $15.3 million, as requested by the
President, from $36.9 million to $52.2 million. The increase was intended for the
implementation of sage grouse conservation activities in an attempt to prevent
the listing of the species for protection under the Endangered Species Act.
•
Range management, which focuses on livestock grazing on 158 million acres of
BLM land, would have increased by $2.6 million, from $87.4 million to $90.0
million. By contrast, the Administration proposed a decrease to $72.3 million, to
be offset in part through a proposed grazing administration fee of $1 per animal
unit month (AUM).24 The committee did not support the proposed fee, and
directed the agency to report on potential cost recovery based on permit
administration costs rather than AUM.25 The committee-reported bill included
provisions relating to livestock grazing. One provision would have extended the
maximum term for BLM and FS grazing permits and leases from 10 to 20 years.
Another provision would have made permanent a provision of law providing for
the automatic renewal of BLM and Forest Service grazing permits and leases that
expire (or are transferred or waived) until the permit renewal process is
completed under applicable laws and regulations, including any necessary
environmental analyses. The current provision is in effect through FY2013.
•
Energy and minerals management would have increased by $23.2 million, from
$107.6 million in FY2012 to $130.9 million in FY2013. This increase is
attributable primarily to additional funding for oil and gas management. The
President sought $92.9 million in appropriations and an additional $48.0 million
to be derived from a new fee on industry for oil and gas inspections (for a total of
$140.9 million). The committee did not approve of this proposed fee. Also, while
the President sought an increase of $7.1 million for renewable energy, the
committee supported a $2.9 million decrease to $16.8 million. Further, in its
report the committee expressed that BLM “must address the role that delays in
permitting of mining activities, including the Department’s overly cumbersome
Federal Register clearance process, play in hindering the ability to develop
domestic sources.”26
•
Resource management planning would have increased by $4.7 million, as
recommended by the President, from $38.1 million to $42.7 million. The increase
was to be used for revising, evaluating, and implementing BLM land
management plans. These plans govern uses of BLM lands and are revised to
reflect changing uses, conditions, and priorities.
Among the committee-supported decreases were funds for wild horses and burros, recreation, the
National Landscape Conservation System, and the Alaska conveyance program, as noted below.
•
Wild horse and burro management would have decreased by $10.8 million, from
$74.9 million to $64.1 million. The committee expressed concern about the
increased costs of the program. The Administration requested an increase to
$77.1 million to research and develop methods of contraception to reduce
24
For grazing fee purposes, an animal unit month (AUM) is defined as a month’s use and occupancy of the range by
one animal unit, which includes one yearling, one cow and her calf, one horse, or five sheep or goats.
25
H.Rept. 112-589 on H.R. 6091, p. 13.
26
H.Rept. 112-589 on H.R. 6091, p. 16.
Congressional Research Service
13
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
population growth. Also, the House committee-reported bill would have retained
the prohibition in the FY2012 appropriations law on using funds for the slaughter
of healthy, unadopted wild horses and burros under BLM management, or for the
sale of wild horses and burros that results in their slaughter for processing into
commercial products. The Administration also supported this funding
prohibition.
•
Recreation management would have decreased by $6.6 million, from $67.5
million to $60.9 million. The President sought an increase to $70.3 million,
primarily for managing wild and scenic rivers, national scenic and historic trails,
and off-highway vehicles. Also, the House committee-reported bill included a
provision to bar funds (in the bill or other acts) from being used to prohibit the
use of, or access to, BLM and FS land for hunting, fishing, or recreational
shooting, provided the use/access was not prohibited on January 1, 2012, and was
in compliance with the pertinent land management plan. However, the provision
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to
temporarily close federal land to hunting, fishing, or recreational shooting under
certain circumstances.
•
National Landscape Conservation System base funding would have decreased by
$11.8 million, from $31.8 million to $20.0 million. The President proposed an
increase to $35.1 million. The funds are used for managing BLM’s protected
areas, including national monuments, national conservation areas, and BLM
wilderness. This system also receives funding from other BLM programs. Also,
the House committee-reported bill would have continued to prohibit the use of
funds from being used to implement an order of the Secretary of the Interior (No.
3310) pertaining to the protection of wilderness characteristics on BLM lands.27
•
The Alaska conveyance program would have decreased by $12.3 million, as
recommended by the President, from $29.1 million to $16.7 million. The
Administration proposed the decrease as part of an effort to reevaluate and
streamline the land conveyance process. The BLM is required by law to transfer
ownership of about 150 million acres of federal lands to the state of Alaska,
Alaska Natives, and Alaska Native corporations, most of which have already
been conveyed.
Construction
The committee-reported bill concurred with the Administration’s proposal to eliminate BLM’s
Construction account in FY2013. Under the Administration’s proposal, construction projects
would be funded through the Management of Lands and Resources account, although the request
did not propose specific construction projects to be funded through this account. The FY2012
appropriation for construction was $3.6 million, the lowest funding level in at least a decade.
27
For more information, see CRS Report R41610, Wilderness: Legislation and Issues in the 113th Congress, by (name
redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
14
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
Land Acquisition
For land acquisition by the BLM, the House Appropriations Committee provided $6.7 million for
FY2013, $15.6 million less than the FY2012 appropriation of $22.3 million and $26.8 million
less than the Administration’s request of $33.6 million. The funding would have been used for
recreational access to BLM lands, as requested by the President, as well as for the acquisition of
inholdings and the costs of program management. By contrast, most of the funding requested by
the Administration was for 12 specific acquisition projects in nine states. The appropriation for
BLM acquisitions has fluctuated over the past decade from a high of $33.2 million in FY2003 to
a low of $8.6 million for both FY2006 and FY2007. Money for land acquisition is appropriated
from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. (For more information, see the “Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF)” section of this report.)
Fish and Wildlife Service28
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is responsible for implementing the Endangered Species
Act, managing the National Wildlife Refuge System for wildlife habitats and appropriate uses,
conserving migratory birds, administering grants to aid state fish and wildlife programs, and
coordinating with state and other federal agencies on fish and wildlife issues. In H.R. 6091, the
House Appropriations Committee approved $1.16 billion for FY2013, down $316.6 million
(21%) from the FY2012 level of $1.48 billion. The President requested $1.55 billion for
comparable programs for FY2013. The President’s total request for the FWS for FY2013 was
$1.35 billion, reflecting a cancelation of $200.0 million in unobligated balances for the Coastal
Impact Assistance Program (CIAP). The committee-reported level was 14% less ($188.6 million)
than the Administration’s request of $1.35 billion.29 The committee did not support the
cancelation of the $200.0 million in CIAP balances. With a few exceptions, the committee’s
proposed changes in accounts and activities relative to FY2012 ranged from elimination (-100%)
to a decrease of 6%.30 (See Table 4.)
By far the largest portion of the FWS annual appropriation is for the Resource Management
account, for which the House Committee approved $1.04 billion, down $185.7 million (15%)
from the $1.23 billion for FY2012. The committee-reported level was 17% less ($206.6 million)
than the Administration’s requested $1.25 billion. Among the programs included in Resource
Management are endangered species, the Refuge System, law enforcement, fisheries, and
cooperative landscape conservation and adaptive science. Selected accounts and programs are
discussed below.
28
For more information on FWS funding, contact (name redacted) at 7-..... In addition, for more detail on FWS
appropriations and a discussion of FWS policy issues that arise in an appropriations context, see CRS Report R42466,
Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2013 Appropriations and Policy, by (name redacted).
29
For the FY2012 budget cycle, CIAP was transferred from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and
Enforcement (also in DOI) to FWS. (See “Coastal Impact Assistance Program” below.)
30
A few subaccounts (below the level of detail in the table shown here) were proposed for level funding.
Congressional Research Service
15
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
Table 4. Appropriations for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), FY2012-FY2013
($ in millions)
FY2012
Approp.
FY2013
Request
FY2013 House
Comm.
Report
Resource Management
1,226.2
1,247.0
1,040.5
—Endangered Species
176.0
179.7
134.0
—Habitat Conservation
110.6
112.4
89.6
—Environmental Contaminants
13.1
14.4
11.2
—National Wildlife Refuge System
485.7
494.8
437.4
—Migratory Birds, Law Enforcement, and
International Conservation
126.6
128.0
107.0
—Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
Conservation
135.3
131.6
127.2
—Cooperative Landscape Conservation
and Adaptive Science
32.2
33.1
3.0
—General operations
146.7
153.0
131.1
Construction
23.1
19.1
17.8
Land Acquisition
54.6
106.9
15.0
Cooperative Endangered Species
Conservation Fund
47.7
60.0
14.1
National Wildlife Refuge Fund
14.0
0
12.0
North American Wetlands
Conservation Fund
35.5
39.4
22.3
Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Fund
3.8
3.8
1.9
Multinational Species Conservation
Fund
9.5
10.0
4.7
State & Tribal Wildlife Grants
61.3
61.3
30.7
Fish and Wildlife Service
Subtotal
a.
1,475.6
1,547.6
1,159.0
Coastal Impact Assistancea
0
-200.0
0
Total Appropriations
1,475.6
1,347.6
1,159.0
For a discussion of the Administration’s proposed cancelation, see “Coastal Impact Assistance Program”
below.
Endangered Species Funding
Funding for the endangered species program is part of the Resource Management account and is
one of the perennially controversial portions of the FWS budget. The House committee approved
$134.0 million, a decrease of $41.9 million from the FY2012 level of $176.0 million and of $45.7
million from the Administration’s request of $179.7 million.
Congressional Research Service
16
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
The FY2012 Interior appropriations law (P.L. 112-74) contained limits on spending for listing
species in response to petitions, for listing foreign species, and for designation of critical habitat.31
Both the House Committee and the President’s proposal for FY2013 would have continued the
spending limits though not at the same levels. The limitations on responding to petitions and
listing foreign species were not included prior to the FY2012 appropriations law. On the other
hand, limitations on critical habitat designation have been a feature of appropriations laws for
over 15 years.32
The Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF) also benefits conservation of
species that are listed, or proposed for listing, under the Endangered Species Act, through grants
to states and territories. The House Committee approved $14.1 million for the CESCF, down
$33.6 million from the FY2012 level of $47.7 million and $45.9 million from the
Administration’s request of $60.0 million.
National Wildlife Refuge System
The House Committee approved $437.4 million for the National Wildlife Refuge System, a
decrease of $48.2 million from FY2012 ($485.7 million) and $57.4 million from the President’s
request of $494.8 million. Costs of operations have increased on many refuges, partly due to
special problems such as hurricane damage and more aggressive border enforcement, but also due
to increased use, invasive species control, maintenance backlog, and other demands.
Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation
The House Committee provided $127.2 million, a decrease of $8.1 million from the FY2012 level
of $135.3 million and $4.4 million from the Administration’s FY2013 request of $131.6 million.
The reduction in the committee-reported level relative to FY2012 was for aquatic habitat and
species conservation. For this activity, the committee proposed $63.1 million, down $8.1 million
from the FY2012 level of $71.2 million and $7.3 million from the Administration’s FY2013
request of $70.4 million.
The committee supported funding for National Fish Hatchery Operations activity at $46.1
million, identical to the FY2012 level.33 The Administration had proposed a $2.9 million
reduction for National Fish Hatchery Operations. The hatchery funding controversy stems from
FWS management of a number of hatcheries whose mandated role, in whole or in part, is to
provide mitigation for activities by other agencies. The House Committee stated that it “will
continue to reject proposals to reduce funding in the Service’s budget for mitigation fish
hatcheries until the Administration has secured offsetting reimbursable funds from the responsible
Federal agencies.”34
31
FWS has long asserted that responding to listing petitions uses agency resources that would be better spent on listing
species that the agency judges to be more in need of protection.
32
See CRS Report R42466, Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2013 Appropriations and Policy, by (name redacted) for
further details on endangered species funding and related actions of the House Committee.
33
While the text of H.Rept. 112-589 (p. 20) identifies an increase of $3.4 million (“$3,394,000”) over the
Administration’s request, the table in the report (p. 147) shows an increase of $2.9 million, which is presented here.
34
H.Rept. 112-589 on H.R. 6091, p. 20.
Congressional Research Service
17
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
Cooperative Landscape Conservation and Adaptive Science35
The House Committee provided $3.0 million for this account, down $29.2 million from the
FY2012 level of $32.2 million and $30.1 million from the Administration’s request of $33.1
million. The accompanying report made no specific comments on this FWS program, although it
contained a discussion of the Administration’s climate change programs generally and criticized
them for duplication and lack of coordination.36 Part of this FWS program supports work with
partners at federal, state, tribal, and local levels to develop strategies to address climate impacts
on wildlife at local and regional scales. The remainder is used to support cooperative scientific
research on climate change as it relates to wildlife impacts and habitat. Both portions support and
work through a network of Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) to ameliorate the
effects of climate change. The LCCs are an amalgam of research institutions, federal resource
managers and scientists, and lands managed by agencies at various levels of government.
Land Acquisition
The House committee provided $15.0 million for land acquisition for FY2013, to be derived from
the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). This was a decrease of $39.6 million from the
FY2012 level of $54.6 million and $91.8 million from the Administration’s request of $106.9
million.37 (For more information, see the “Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)” section
of this report.) Within this program, the committee proposed that there be no new funding for
general land acquisition, and that funding be directed to inholdings, acquisition management, and
$4.0 million for purposes of the Highlands Conservation Act.38
Wildlife Refuge Fund
The National Wildlife Refuge Fund (NWRF, also called the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund)
compensates counties for the presence of the non-taxable federal lands under the jurisdiction of
FWS.39 A portion of the fund is supported by the permanent appropriation of receipts from
various activities carried out on FWS lands. Receipts have not been sufficient for full funding at
authorized levels for many years, so additional funds have come from annual appropriations,
though not enough to provide the fully authorized level. County governments—which assert that
the presence of these lands results in expenditures for emergency services, road maintenance,
traffic control, etc.—have long urged additional appropriations to make payments at the full
authorized level.
35
This program was previously called climate change planning and adaptive science capacity.
H.Rept. 112-589 on H.R. 6091, p. 9.
37
Under the Migratory Bird Conservation Account (MBCA), FWS has a source of mandatory spending for land
acquisition. The MBCA does not receive funding in annual Interior appropriations bills. The account is permanently
appropriated, and funds for FY2011 (the most recent complete year) were $50.8 million, derived from the sale of duck
stamps to hunters and recreationists, and from import duties on certain arms and ammunition. For five fiscal years
(FY2009-FY2013), two Administrations have proposed legislation to increase the statutorily fixed price of duck stamps
from $15 to $25; if enacted, the increase would add an estimated $14.0 million to the program.
38
The program benefits lands in CT, NJ, NY, and PA.
39
For more information on the NWRF, see CRS Report R42404, Fish and Wildlife Service: Compensation to Local
Governments, by (name redacted). The National Wildlife Refuge Fund is distinct from the Payments in Lieu of Taxes
(PILT) program administered by DOI, for which many types of federal lands are eligible. FWS lands in the National
Wildlife Refuge System that are reserved from the public domain are eligible for PILT; acquired lands are not.
36
Congressional Research Service
18
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
The committee approved $12.0 million for the Fund—a reduction of $2.0 million from the
FY2012 level. Funding at this level (added to $4.9 million in permanently appropriated receipts)
would have provided counties with 23% of the authorized level of $73.8 million.40 The
Administration requested no funding. If payments were based on estimated receipts alone,
counties would have received 7% of this authorized level.41 The Administration asserted that the
savings are justified based on low costs of refuges to county infrastructure and the economic
benefits to local economies from increased tourism. For FY2012, the Administration made a
similar proposal to eliminate annual appropriations for NWRF. However, Congress appropriated
$14.0 million for FY2012.
Multinational Species and Neotropical Migrants
The Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF) generates considerable public interest
despite its small size. Its programs benefit Asian and African elephants, tigers, rhinoceroses, great
apes, and marine turtles through grant programs in dozens of countries. The House committee
reduced the MSCF to $4.7 million, down 50% relative to FY2012. All of the programs under
MSCF were reduced by 50% as well. The committee emphasized that all of the authorizations in
this account have expired, or will expire in FY2012. The Administration requested $10.0 million.
Similarly, the committee reduced the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund to $1.9
million (down 50%) relative to the FY2012 level and the Administration’s FY2013 request ($3.8
million).42
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants help fund efforts to conserve species (including nongame
species) of concern to states, territories, and tribes. The program was created in the FY2001
Interior appropriations law (P.L. 106-291) and further detailed in subsequent Interior
appropriations laws. (It has no separate authorizing statute.) As it did for some programs with
expired or expiring authorizations, the House committee reduced this program to $30.7 million
(down 50%) from the FY2012 level and the Administration’s FY2013 request ($61.3 million).
The House committee urged the authorizing committees to enact legislation for these grants or
evaluate the possibility of certain alternatives. The committee-reported bill would have raised a
state’s minimum share to 50%. The FY2012 program required a state’s minimum share of either
25% or 35% (depending on the type of project), which the President proposed continuing for
FY2013. The committee also eliminated bill language to allow unobligated balances to be reapportioned.
40
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year
2013, p. RF-3.
41
In 2009, Congress made PILT a mandatory spending program for FY2008-FY2012, but did not change the NWRF.
As a result of the PILT formula, which largely makes up for the pro-rated NWRF payment rate but for public domain
lands only, counties with acquired FWS lands have been under-compensated for revenue loss relative to counties with
refuge lands reserved from the public domain. Because eastern refuges are mostly acquired land, and western refuges
are mostly reserved from the public domain, effects of lower funding rates for NWRF would fall primarily on eastern
counties. For further information on the interaction of PILT and NWRF, see CRS Report RL31392, PILT (Payments in
Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified, by (name redacted).
42
For more information on the two funds discussed here, see CRS Report RS21157, International Species
Conservation Funds, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
19
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
Coastal Impact Assistance Program
In its FY2013 budget, the Administration proposed to cancel $200.0 million of the unobligated
balance for the Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP). The House Appropriations
Committee did not support this proposal. CIAP was established in its modern form under the
Energy Policy Act of 2005.43 The focus of CIAP is assistance to states and local governments
with the impacts of offshore development on coastal ecosystems, including wetlands. Under the
current CIAP, eligible states are those with offshore energy production: Alabama, Alaska,
California, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. The 2005 law provided that, from the revenues
derived from federal energy leases on the Outer Continental Shelf for each year from FY2007
through FY2010, there would be mandatory spending authority of $250 million, to remain
available until expended. Of the resulting $1 billion total from those four fiscal years, there
remain approximately $565 million in unobligated balances. Under CIAP, these balances are
available without further appropriation for the program.
At its inception, the program was administered by the Minerals Management Service, then by its
successor agency, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement
(BOEMRE), and now by FWS. With the transfer to FWS in FY2012, the unobligated balance was
transferred as well.
Administrative Provisions
As reported by the House Appropriations Committee, H.R. 6091 contained administrative
provisions affecting FWS. A provision affecting gray wolves provided that “[b]efore the end of
the 60-day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior
shall issue a final rule pertaining to the proposed rule”44 concerning the removal of gray wolves in
Wyoming from the list of species protected under the Endangered Species Act.45 The committee
sought to “ensure a timely decision on the Wyoming wolf management plan” and expressed that
“the pending wolf management proposal is the result of cooperative work between the agency and
the State.”46 The effect of the provision, in the absence of an accepted wolf management plan and
the required approval by the Wyoming legislature, could mean that wolf management in the state
stops short of recovery goals.47
Another provision concerns three captive-bred exotic species that are related to antelope. It would
have required FWS to reissue a 2005 rule and preclude judicial review of the rule.48 Specifically,
the rule affected U.S. captive-bred scimitar-horned oryx (Oryx dammah), addax (Addax
nasomaculatus), and dama gazelle (Gazella dama), all listed as endangered. These species are
rare, or perhaps extinct, in their native habitat. They are found on game farms, where farm
43
16 U.S.C. §§1451-1465. The original program was created under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P.L.
92-583). Substantial amendments were made to CIAP with the 2005 amendments in P.L. 109-58, §384.
44
Section 117 of H.R. 6091 as reported by the House Appropriations Committee.
45
See 76 Fed. Reg. 61782 et seq.
46
H.Rept. 112-589 on H.R. 6091, pp. 19-20.
47
For further information on this provision, see CRS Report R42466, Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2013
Appropriations and Policy, by (name redacted). For more on gray wolf management generally see CRS Report
RL34238, Gray Wolves Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA): Distinct Population Segments and Experimental
Populations, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
48
Section 423 of H.R. 6091 as reported by the House Appropriations Committee.
Congressional Research Service
20
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
managers allow hunting of surplus captive-bred animals subject to permits from FWS. The FWS
2005 rule would have allowed a variety of activities, including hunting, interstate shipment, and
other specified activities, as long as certain criteria were met.49 A court held that the rule violated
the ESA by granting a broad exception to all game farms raising these species, rather than issuing
permits on a case-by-case basis.50 FWS removed the exclusion and stated that it would require
any person who wishes to hunt or transport one of the three species to qualify for an exception or
obtain a permit.51
National Park Service52
The National Park Service (NPS) administers the National Park System—397 units covering
more than 84 million acres, with many diverse natural and historic areas. The NPS also supports
and promotes some resource conservation activities outside the Park System through limited grant
and technical assistance programs and cooperation with partners.
For FY2013, H.R. 6091 as reported by the House Appropriations Committee contained $2.45
billion for the NPS, a decrease of $134.4 million (5%) from the FY2012 level of $2.58 billion and
of $133.5 million (5%) from the Administration FY2013 request of $2.58 billion. Under the
committee bill, each account would have been decreased relative to the FY2012 appropriation
and the FY2013 request, except that the committee level matched the Administration’s request for
the Construction account. However, most of the decrease in the bill relative to both the FY2012
appropriation and the FY2013 request was for Land Acquisition and State Assistance. Table 5
provides the appropriations for the NPS by account, and several of the major accounts and
programs are discussed below.
Table 5. Appropriations for the National Park Service (NPS), FY2012-FY2013
($ in millions)
FY2012 Approp.
FY2013 Request
FY2013 House
Comm. Report
Operation of the National Park System
2,236.6
2,250.1
2,229.4
—Park Management
2,067.6
2,070.4
2,060.5
——Resource Stewardship
329.8
333.4
324.3
——Visitor Services
239.3
237.8
239.3
——Park Protection
360.7
363.0
360.7
——Facility Operations and Maintenance
683.4
681.8
681.8
——Park Support
454.4
454.4
454.4
—Administrative Costs
168.9
179.7
168.9
National Park Service
49
A further final rule of Sept. 2, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 52319) also changed the status of wild individuals of these species
to endangered. This rule is not affected by the committee’s action.
50
Friends of Animals, et al., v. Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, and Rebecca Ann Cary, et al., v. Rowan Gould,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, et al., 626 F. Supp. 2d 102 (D.D.C. 2009).
51
77 Fed. Reg. 431.
52
For more information on NPS funding in general, contact (name redacted) at 7-..... For more information on
funding for historic preservation, contact Shannon Loane at 7-.....
Congressional Research Service
21
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
FY2012 Approp.
FY2013 Request
FY2013 House
Comm. Report
National Recreation and Preservation
59.9
52.1
51.8
Historic Preservation Fund
55.9
55.9
49.5
Construction
155.4a
131.2
131.2
Land and Water Conservation Fundb
-30.0
-30.0
-30.0
Land Acquisition and State Assistance
101.9
119.4
13.3
—Assistance to States
44.9
60.0
2.8
—NPS Acquisition
57.0
59.4
10.5
2,579.6
2,578.7
2,445.2
National Park Service
Total Appropriations
a.
b.
Figure reflects a rescission of $4.0 million in prior year balances.
Figures reflect a rescission of contract authority.
Operation of the National Park System
The largest portion of the NPS annual appropriations is for the Operation of the National Park
System account. The majority of operations funding is provided directly to park managers for the
activities, programs, and services that constitute the day-to-day operations of the Park System.
For this account, the House Appropriations Committee approved $2.23 billion, $7.2 million less
than the FY2012 level ($2.24 billion) and $20.6 million less than the Administration’s request for
FY2013 ($2.25 billion).
Of the five major activities funded in the account, funding for resource stewardship differed the
most among the committee-reported bill, Administration’s request, and FY2012 appropriation.
Specifically, the House committee bill included $324.3 million, a decrease of $5.5 million from
the FY2012 level ($329.8 million) and $9.1 million from the Administration’s request ($333.4
million). Within this activity, the Administration sought $8.0 million for the climate change
program, an increase of $5.0 million over FY2012. Under this program, the NPS monitors the
impact of climate change on park units, takes mitigation actions based on monitoring, and
develops adaptation strategies. The House Appropriations Committee did not include “requested
funding for climate-change related activities,” on the grounds that there is a “critical need for a
significant improvement in the level of coordination and communication of climate change
activities, budgets, and accomplishments across the bureaus within the Department of the
Interior.”53
The House Appropriations Committee expressed its rejection of the Administration’s proposed
cuts to funding for park base operations.54 The Administration had proposed a $21.6 million
decrease in park base operations due to “fiscal realities.” To reduce costs at park units, while
attempting to minimize the negative impact on visitors, NPS proposed options including limiting
the use of certain areas (e.g., campgrounds and facilities), reducing hours of operation and
services during periods of low visitor usage, reducing the use of utilities and supplies, and
limiting maintenance and cleaning.55
53
H.Rept. 112-589 on H.R. 6091, p. 25.
H.Rept. 112-589 on H.R. 6091, p. 25.
55
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year
(continued...)
54
Congressional Research Service
22
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
The committee-reported bill included level funding of $168.9 million for NPS external
administrative costs. The Administration sought $179.7 million for these costs, an increase of
$10.7 million over FY2012. External administrative costs fund the NPS contribution towards
administrative support functions which are managed centrally. Increases were sought for
payments for unemployment compensation, space rental, and other DOI-wide programs and
activities. However, the committee bill supported the Administration’s requested increase of $2.6
million for NPS responsibilities related to the 2013 presidential inauguration, for park police and
visitor orientation and safety. Further, it contained $9.8 million for planning and interagency
coordination in support of Everglades restoration, nearly level with the Administration’s request
($9.9 million).56
National Recreation and Preservation
For the National Recreation and Preservation (NR&P) account for FY2013, the House
committee-reported bill contained $51.8 million, $8.1 million less than the FY2012 level of $59.9
million and $0.3 million less than the Administration’s request for FY2013 of $52.1 million.
NR&P funds a variety of Park System activities, including natural and cultural resource
protection programs, environmental and compliance review, and an international park affairs
office. It also includes programs providing technical assistance to state and local community
efforts to preserve natural, historic, and cultural resources outside the National Park System.
Both the House Committee and the Administration approved a reduction in heritage partnership
funding to about half the FY2012 amount; they supported $9.3 million, an $8.1 million decrease
from the FY2012 level of $17.4 million. The program supports national heritage areas (NHAs),
which are neither owned nor managed by the NPS. According to the NPS, the reduction for
FY2013 would allow the agency to focus resources on national park units and other partnership
programs, provide seed money for less mature heritage areas, and address the concerns of
appropriators about the expanding number of NHAs and their ability to become more financially
self-sufficient.57 The committee noted that state and local managers of NHAs “continue to rely
heavily” on federal funding and that NHAs have not completed plans for long-term selfsufficiency. The committee also expressed concern with the NPS pace of evaluations of NHAs as
to the agency’s future role.58
The House committee-reported bill also included a provision to extend the authority of the
Secretary of the Interior to provide financial and other assistance to certain heritage areas for
which the authority is due to expire (for most areas on September 30, 2012). The provision would
have extended the authority until September 30, 2014. The bill also would have extended the
authority of the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission and the
(...continued)
2013, p. ONPS-110.
56
In addition, language in the FY2012 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations law, which the
Administration did not propose to change for FY2013, states that the construction appropriation is to include
modifications under the Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989. NPS funding has been used
to modify water management systems to improve water deliveries to the park. For additional information on funding
for restoration of the Everglades, see CRS Report R42007, Everglades Restoration: Federal Funding and
Implementation Progress, by (name redacted).
57
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year
2013, p. NR&P-59.
58
H.Rept. 112-589 on H.R. 6091, pp. 27-28.
Congressional Research Service
23
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
authorization of appropriations for the Delaware and Lehigh Navigation Canal National Heritage
Corridor Commission.
Historic Preservation
The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF), administered by the NPS, provides grants-in-aid for
activities specified in the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA; 16 U.S.C. §470), such as
restoring historic districts, sites, buildings, and objects significant in American history and
culture. The fund’s preservation grants are normally funded on a 60% federal and 40% state
matching share basis.
For FY2013, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $49.5 million for the HPF, a
reduction of $6.4 million from the level enacted for FY2012 and proposed by the Administration
for FY2013 ($55.9 million). Of the $49.5 million, $42.5 million was for state historic
preservation offices and $7.0 million was for tribal grants.
Construction
For NPS Construction for FY2013, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $131.2
million, as requested by the Administration, a $24.2 million decrease from the FY2012 level of
$155.4 million. The FY2013 request included a reduction of $25.3 million for line-item
construction projects (as well as other smaller increases and decreases for a total reduction of
$24.2 million for the account). The Administration asserted that this level of funding would
address “only the most critical life/health/safety, resource protection, and emergency projects.”59
These projects were identified through an NPS inventory and condition assessment program.
In the past, the Construction account has funded new construction projects, as well as
improvements, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of park facilities. No new facility
construction was included in the House committee-reported bill or Administration’s request.
The Construction account also funds general management planning, including the special
resource studies that evaluate potential Park System additions. For general management planning,
the House Appropriations Committee supported the Administration’s request for $13.6 million for
FY2013, a $1.0 million reduction from FY2012. Of the $13.6 million, $2.2 million was intended
for the development of special resource studies, with a focus on completing previously authorized
studies before beginning new ones, as the conferees on the FY2012 appropriations bill had urged.
Construction funds are used in part to address deferred maintenance, which is a continuing NPS
concern. However, the portion of construction funds for addressing deferred maintenance
typically is not specified in NPS budget and appropriations documents. While the NPS has
improved inventory and asset management systems, the estimate of its deferred maintenance
backlog has continued to mount. DOI estimated deferred maintenance for the NPS for FY2011 at
between $8.94 billion and $13.15 billion, with a mid-range figure of $11.04 billion. In the past,
additional funding also has been provided for NPS road construction and repair through the
Federal Lands Highway Program of the Federal Highway Administration.
59
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year
2013, p. CONST-6.
Congressional Research Service
24
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
Land Acquisition and State Assistance
For FY2013, the House committee-reported bill would have provided $13.3 million for Land
Acquisition and State Assistance. This would have been a decrease of $88.6 million from the
FY2012 appropriation ($101.9 million) and $106.1 million from the Administration’s request for
FY2013 ($119.4 million). The committee approved decreases relative to the FY2012
appropriation and FY2013 request for both components of the program.
Land acquisition funds typically are used primarily to acquire lands, or interests in lands, for
inclusion within the National Park System. For land acquisition, the committee bill would have
provided $10.5 million, with no funding for new core acquisitions. Instead, the funds would be
used for the costs of managing previously funded acquisitions, emergencies and hardships, and
protection of battlefields outside the National Park System (under the American Battlefield
Protection Program). The committee level would have been a decrease of $46.5 million from the
FY2012 appropriation ($57.0 million) and of $48.9 million from the Administration’s request for
FY2013 ($59.4 million).
State assistance is for outdoor recreation-related land acquisition and recreation planning and
development by the states, with the appropriated funds allocated among the states by formula and
the states determining their spending priorities. Grants are provided on a 50/50 matching basis.
For grants to states, the House committee-reported bill contained $2.8 million. Instead of new
grants to states, the funds were to be used for the costs of administering previous state grants. The
committee level would have been a decrease of $42.1 million from the FY2012 level ($44.9
million) and of $57.2 million from the Administration’s request for FY2013 ($60.0 million). Of
the funding for grants to states, the Administration proposed that $20.0 million be provided under
a new competitive grants program. The program would focus on grants for urban parks and
greenspaces, landscape-level conservation, and public access to rivers and waterways for
recreation. (For more information, see the “Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)” section
of this report.)
U.S. Geological Survey60
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is a science agency that provides physical and biological
information related to geological resources; climate change; and energy, mineral, water, and
biological sciences and resources. In addition, it is the federal government’s principal civilian
mapping agency and a primary source of data on the quality of the nation’s water resources.
In 2011, the USGS reorganized its science programs to interdisciplinary themes61 related to those
outlined in the USGS 2007-2017 strategic plan.62 The interdisciplinary programs are Ecosystems;
Climate and Land Use Change; Energy, Minerals, and Environmental Health; Natural Hazards;
Water Resources; Core Science Systems; Administration and Enterprise Information; and
Facilities.
60
For more information on USGS funding, contact (name redacted) at 7-.....
Hereinafter these “themes” are referred to as programs.
62
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges: U.S. Geological Science in the
Decade 2007-2017, Circular 1309, 2007. Hereinafter cited as USGS 2007-2017 Strategic Plan.
61
Congressional Research Service
25
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
For FY2013, the bill reported by the House Appropriations Committee contained total
appropriations of $967.0 million for the USGS, a decrease of $101.0 million (9%) from the
FY2012 level of $1.07 billion and of $135.5 million (12%) from the FY2013 request of $1.10
billion (see Table 6). The committee-reported bill contained decreases from the FY2012 level for
the following programs: Ecosystems; Climate and Land Use Change; Energy, Minerals, and
Environmental Health; Natural Hazards; Administration and Enterprise Information; and
Facilities. The bill provided increases over FY2012 for the Water Resources and Core Science
Systems programs. Relative to the Administration’s request, only the Water Resources Program
received more funding in the reported bill; all other programs received decreases.
The committee-reported bill sought to limit funds for particular purposes. It provided that none of
the funds under the Ecosystems Program can be used to conduct surveys on private land without
the written consent of the owner. Another provision provided that none of the funds for the USGS
can be used to pay for more than one-half the cost of topographical mapping and water resources
data collections and investigations done in collaboration with states and municipalities.
Table 6. Appropriations for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), FY2012-FY2013
($ in millions)
FY2012 Approp.
FY2013 Request
Surveys, Investigations, and Research
1,068.0
1,102.5
967.0
—Ecosystems
161.3
177.9
132.5
—Climate and Land Use Change
144.1
153.7
128.3
——Climate Variability
58.9
67.7
51.9
——Land Use Change
85.2
86.0
76.4
—Energy, Minerals, and Environmental Health
96.2
97.1
88.3
—Natural Hazards
134.5
144.8
107.4
—Water Resources
214.7
209.8
219.8
—Core Science Systems
106.7
120.4
112.3
—Administration and Enterprise Information
110.2
99.1
82.4
—Facilities
100.4
99.7
96.0
1,068.0
1,102.5
967.0
U.S. Geological Survey
Total Appropriations
FY2013 House
Comm. Report
The committee indicated that USGS science programs were provided limited or no funding for
FY2013 because they are unauthorized or have expired authorizations of appropriations. Specific
programs were not identified.63 This justification also was used for proposing limited or no
funding for other programs in agencies funded by the bill. Further, the committee asserted that
significant improvement in coordination and communication among federal agencies in activities
related to climate change needs to take place. The committee proposed cutting climate change
spending throughout the bill by 29% for FY2013 compared to FY2012.64 The USGS conducts
63
64
H.Rept. 112-589 on H.R. 6091, pp. 7-8.
H.Rept. 112-589 on H.R. 6091, p. 9.
Congressional Research Service
26
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
research and monitoring related to climate change in its Climate Change Program. Funding for
the Climate Change Program in the reported bill was $51.9 million, $7.1 million less than the
FY2012 level of $58.9 million.
Ecosystems
The Ecosystems program focuses on research and monitoring of the structure and function of
ecosystems. Activities emphasize a systems approach to scientific research that focuses on how
processes affect the structure, function, and resilience of ecosystems. The Ecosystems program
has six sub-programs: status and trends; fisheries (aquatic and endangered resources); wildlife
(terrestrial and endangered resources); terrestrial, freshwater, and marine environments; invasive
species; and cooperative research units. For FY2013, the House Appropriations Committee
recommended $132.5 million for the Ecosystems Program, a decrease of $45.3 million from the
FY2013 Administration request of $177.9 million and of $28.8 million from the FY2012 level of
$161.3 million.
In its report, the House committee noted that it did not support a large number of program
increases requested by the Administration. Much of the requested increases were for ecosystem
priorities activities, which focus on the conservation and restoration of ecosystems throughout the
nation such as the Chesapeake Bay and Florida Everglades. However, the committee supported
some increases proposed by the Administration, including $1.0 million for addressing white nose
syndrome in bats and $3.0 million for research on new methods to control and eradicate Asian
carp in the Upper Mississippi River Basin and to prevent their entry into the Great Lakes. The
committee proposed reductions for all sub-programs under this program compared to the
Administration’s request, including funding for the Fisheries: Aquatic and Endangered Resources
sub-program (34% reduction); Wildlife: Terrestrial and Endangered Resources sub-program (20%
reduction); and the Terrestrial, Freshwater and Marine Environments Program (31% reduction).
Climate and Land Use Change
The Climate and Land Use Change program is split into two sub-programs, climate variability
and land use change. The climate variability sub-program provides scientific information to users
and DOI agencies to assist in creating adaptation strategies for changes in various landscapes.
The committee-reported bill included $128.3 million for the Climate and Land Use Change
Program, a reduction of $25.5 million from the Administration’s request of $153.7 million and
$15.8 million from the FY2012 level of $144.1 million. The Land Use Change sub-program
enables users to access and use Earth observation imagery collected via satellites. The committee
level for this sub-program was $76.4 million, $9.6 million less than the FY2013 request of $86.0
million and $8.8 million below the FY2012 level of $85.2 million. The Landsat Missions
programs, through the line item Land Remote Sensing, would have received $66.4 million, $5.7
million less than the FY2013 request ($72.1 million) and $7.3 million less than the FY2012 level
($73.7 million). Portions of this funding were to be used to complete Landsat 865 and Landsat 966
mission development.
65
Landsat 8 is being developed to take remotely sensed images of the Earth’s land surface and surrounding coastal
areas primarily for environmental monitoring. Landsat data are freely available to the public at http://landsat.usgs.gov/
Landsat_Search_and_Download.php.
Congressional Research Service
27
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
Under the Climate Variability sub-program, the reported bill provided $51.9 million, which was
$15.9 million less than the FY2013 request of $67.7 million and $7.1 million less than the
FY2012 level of $58.9 million. The reported bill did not fund increases requested by the
Administration for science support for DOI agencies and climate research and development,
among other things. According to the Administration, the funding would be used to create tools to
monitor landscape changes and maintain partnerships with other stakeholders to better understand
climate effects and adaptation strategies.
Energy, Minerals, and Environmental Health
The Energy, Minerals, and Environmental Health program includes research and assessments on
the nation’s mineral and energy resources. There are four components: minerals resources, energy
resources, toxic substances hydrology, and contaminant biology. The contaminant biology subprogram reflects the intent for energy and mineral resources to be understood in the context of the
life cycle of the energy or mineral commodity. Under this context, activities address how energy
and mineral resources influence landscape, water, climate, ecosystems, and human health.
The House committee-reported bill provided $88.3 million for this program, a decrease of $8.9
million from the Administration’s request of $97.1 million and of $7.9 million from the FY2012
level of $96.2 million. The bill provided $46.8 million for the Minerals Resources sub-program, a
$1.5 million increase over the Administration’s request of $45.3 million but a decrease of $2.4
million from the FY2012 level of $49.2 million. This program supports data collection, analysis,
and research to better understand the availability of domestic and global mineral resources. A
decrease in funding may delay the completion of the next National Mineral Resource Assessment,
according to USGS.67 In the past, the Administration has proposed cuts in this program but
Congress has reinstated funding. The committee supported the Administration’s request for a $1.0
million increase over FY2012 to support research on rare earth elements. Rare earth elements are
used in various components of defense weapons systems and have applications for the science
and technology and manufacturing sectors. Their supply and accessibility have been referred to as
a national security concern by some Members.68 The committee also expressed its support for
studying the extent and sources of endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are affecting fish and
wildlife in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
Natural Hazards
This program is expected to provide scientific information and knowledge necessary to address
and mitigate the effects of natural hazards such as volcanoes, earthquakes, storm surges, and
landslides. The coastal and marine geology sub-program is expected to address natural hazards-
(...continued)
66
The development process of Landsat 9 is expected to include surveying users for their remote sensing needs,
conducting trade studies on data needs, initiating the procurement for instruments and spacecraft, and establishing a
science advisory team.
67
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year
2013, p. B-37.
68
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, Effect of
the President’s FY 2013 Budget for the U.S. Geological Survey on Private Sector Job Creation, Hazard Protection,
Mineral Resources and Deficit Reduction, Oversight Hearing, 112th Cong., 2nd Sess., March 22, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
28
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
related issues, such as the impacts of hurricanes and tsunamis on the coast, and the effects of
rising relative sea level on coastal ecosystems and communities.
The House Appropriations Committee proposed $107.4 million for this program, a decrease of
$37.4 million from the Administration’s request of $144.8 million and of $27.1 million from the
FY2012 level of $134.5 million. The largest reduction was for the Earthquake Hazards program, a
$14.8 million decrease from the requested amount of $58.9 million and an $11.0 million decrease
from the FY2012 appropriation of $55.1 million. The committee report did not make explicit why
reductions in this program were made. The second largest reduction was for the Coastal and
Marine Geology program, a $14.4 million decrease from the requested amount of $49.3 million
and a $9.0 million decrease from the FY2012 level of $43.9 million.
Water Resources
The Water Resources program includes activities that collect, assess, and disseminate
hydrological data, and analyze and research hydrological systems and methods for water
conservation. This program contains the national streamflow information sub-program and the
cooperative water sub-program, both of which fund streamgages throughout the nation.
The House Appropriations Committee proposed $219.8 million for this program, an increase of
$10.0 million from the Administration’s request of $209.8 million and of $5.1 million from the
FY2012 level of $214.7 million. The committee proposed level funding for the Water Resources
Research Act Program at $6.5 million; funding was eliminated in the Administration’s request.
Such elimination has been proposed several times in the past, although each year the
appropriations law contained funding. Funding for this program provides grants to 54 water
resources research institutes throughout the country. Generally, the grants are used to leverage
additional funding for research from other sources. The Administration contended that the
elimination of this program would allow funds to be used in higher priority areas, such as the
WaterSMART program. The committee-reported bill also retained funding for the Cooperative
Water Program at $64.0 million, although the Administration sought a reduction to $59.3 million.
The reduction would have affected funding for interpretative studies of water related data as well
as for data collection activities through streamgages, according to the Administration.
Core Science Systems
The Core Science Systems program provides data in a geospatial framework for managing
resources and planning for natural hazards. The House Appropriations Committee bill proposed
$112.3 million for this program, a decrease of $8.1 million from the Administration’s request of
$120.4 million and an increase of $5.6 million from the FY2012 level of $106.7 million.
The Administration proposed a realignment of funds from the information resources sub-program
under the Administration and Enterprise Information program, to consolidate several information
programs into a new science synthesis, analysis, and research program. The realignment resulted
in a request of $26.3 million for biological information management and delivery, an increase
over the FY2012 level of $15.1 million. The committee supported the realignment, but proposed
funding at $20.6 million.
Congressional Research Service
29
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
Administration and Enterprise Information
This program reflects administrative activities and Enterprise Information. Enterprise Information
consolidates funding of all USGS information needs, including information technology, security,
services, and resources management, as well as capital asset planning. The House Committee on
Appropriations proposed $82.4 million for this program, a decrease of $16.6 million from the
Administration’s request of $99.1 million and of $27.8 million from the FY2012 level of $110.2
million. A primary reason for the reduction from FY2012 was that the committee supported the
Administration’s request to transfer funding for information resources to the Core Science
Systems line item, as discussed above. The committee also proposed a reduction of $10.5 million
for the Science Support sub-program to $62.9 million from the FY2012 level of $73.4 million;
the Administration sought an increase to $75.8 million.
Facilities
The Facilities program includes sites where USGS activities are housed—offices, laboratories,
storage, parking, and more—as well as eight large research vessels. The House Appropriations
Committee proposed $96.0 million for this program, a decrease of $3.7 million from the
Administration’s request of $99.7 million and of $4.4 million from the FY2012 level of $100.4
million.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, and
Office of Natural Resources Revenue69
In response to the April 20, 2010, Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, on May 11,
2010, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced a plan to separate the safety and
environmental functions of the Minerals Management Service (MMS) from its leasing and
revenue collection function. The goal was to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the
agency. On May 19, 2010, the Secretary decided to establish three new entities to perform the
functions of the MMS: the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), the Bureau of Safety
and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), and the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR).
The transition to the new framework was completed on October 1, 2011. Each of the three new
entities has a director under the supervision of an assistant secretary.70
BOEM manages development of the nation’s offshore resources, including administering offshore
leasing, conducting environmental and economic analyses, and preparing resource evaluations.
BSEE enforces safety and environmental regulations. Functions include offshore regulatory
programs, research, and oil spill response. Field operations include permitting, inspections, and
environmental compliance. ONRR was established under the DOI Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Policy, Management, and Budget to collect, account for, analyze, audit, and disburse
69
For more information on BOEM, BSEE, and ONRR funding, contact (name redacted) at 7-.....
Additional information on the reassignment of MMS’s responsibilities is contained in Secretarial Order No. 3299, on
the DOI website at http://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=32475, and
in a September 30, 2011, DOI news release on the DOI website, at http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/InteriorDepartment-Completes-Reorganization-of-the-Former-MMS.cfm.
70
Congressional Research Service
30
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
revenues from energy and mineral leases on the outer continental shelf, federal onshore, and
American Indian lands.
In FY2011, ONRR disbursed $11.2 billion in revenues from mineral leases on federal and Indian
lands,71 up from $9.2 billion in FY2010 but down from the FY2008 record amount of $23.5
billion. This amount fluctuates annually based primarily on the prices of oil and natural gas and
averaged about $13 billion per year from FY2007-FY2011. Other sources of ONRR receipts
include bonus bids and rents for all leasable minerals and royalties from coal and other minerals.
ONRR distributes revenues under various authorities. Revenues from onshore leases are
disbursed to the states in which they were collected, the general fund of the U.S. Treasury, and
designated programs based on various statutory formulas. Revenues from offshore leases are
allocated among coastal states, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Historic Preservation
Fund, and the Treasury.72
FY2013 Budget and Appropriations
The bill reported by the House Appropriations Committee would have funded all three agencies at
the FY2012 level: BSEE, $76.3 million; BOEM, $59.7 million; and ONRR, $119.4 million. This
would have been $20.0 million less than the Administration’s FY2013 request for BSEE ($96.3
million), $3.0 million less than the request for BOEM ($62.7 million), and $0.2 million less than
the request for ONRR ($119.6 million). The committee supported offsetting collections within the
BSEE and BOEM at a level of $125.9 million and $101.4 million, respectively. There were no
offsetting collections reported by the committee for ONRR. Table 7, Table 8, and Table 9
identify the funding levels enacted for FY2012, requested by the Administration, and reported by
the House Committee for BSEE, BOEM, and ONRR, respectively.
With regard to BSEE, the House committee supported a $4.8 million increase over FY2012
($132.1 million) for the Operations, Safety, and Regulation activity and an increase in offsetting
receipts of the same amount. Most of the Administration’s proposed $20.0 million increase for
FY2013 was for the regulatory programs as well as for environmental enforcement. Under the
committee-reported bill and the Administration’s request, oil spill research would have remained
flat at $14.9 million in FY2013, but would have been up substantially from $6.3 million enacted
in FY2010. The committee agreed with the Administration’s proposal to increase inspection fees
to $65.0 million, up from the $62.0 million for FY2012.
With regard to BOEM, about one-half of the Administration’s proposed increase ($3.0 million in
total) was for the renewable energy program. Specifically, the Administration proposed increasing
this program by $1.4 million from $22.7 million in FY2012 to $24.0 million in FY2013. This
subactivity was established in FY2010, when BOEM created a new Office of Offshore
Alternative Energy Programs to develop and implement its offshore renewable energy policies
and comply with departmental goals. The agency issued four limited leases (three in New Jersey,
one in Delaware) for site testing and data collection in late 2009. On April 28, 2010, the Secretary
of the Interior announced the BOEM Record of Decision to issue a commercial lease to Cape
Wind Associates, LLC, at Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound, to develop a 130-turbine wind
71
FY2011 is the most recent year for which figures are available.
For a discussion of offshore revenue sharing issues and legislation, see CRS Report R40645, U.S. Offshore Oil and
Gas Resources: Prospects and Processes, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
72
Congressional Research Service
31
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
energy project offshore. BOEM has plans to more efficiently site, lease, and construct offshore
wind energy projects with its “Smart from the Start” program, according to the agency.
Table 7. Appropriations for the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
(BSEE), FY2012-FY2013
($ in millions)
BSEE
FY2012
Approp.
FY2013
Request
FY2013 House
Comm.
Report
Offshore Safety and Environmental
Enforcement
—Environmental Enforcement
4.1
8.3
4.1
—Operations, Safety, and Regulation
132.1
146.7
136.9
—Administrative Operations
15.5
21.0
15.5
—General Support Services
12.6
13.0
12.6
—Executive Direction
18.1
18.2
18.1
Subtotal
182.5
207.3
187.3
Offsetting rental receipts
-52.6
-52.5
-52.5
Inspection fees
-62.0
-65.0
-65.0
Cost recovery fees
-6.5
-8.4
-8.4
Total, Offshore Safety and
Environmental Enforcement
61.4
81.4
61.4
Oil spill research
14.9
14.9
14.9
Total Appropriations
76.3
96.3
76.3
Table 8. Appropriations for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM),
FY2012-FY2013
($ in millions)
BOEM
FY2012
Approp.
FY2013
Request
FY2013 House
Comm.
Report
Ocean Energy Management
—Renewable Energy
22.7
24.0
22.7
—Conventional Energy
47.2
47.6
47.6
—Environmental Assessment
62.0
62.9
62.0
—General Support Services
12.8
13.3
12.8
—Executive Direction
16.0
16.2
16.0
Subtotal
160.8
164.1
161.1
Offsetting rental receipts
-99.0
-98.8
-98.8
Cost recovery fees
-2.1
-2.6
-2.6
Total Appropriations
59.7
62.7
59.7
Congressional Research Service
32
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
Table 9. Appropriations for the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR),
FY2012-FY2013
($ in millions)
FY2012
Approp.
FY2013
Request
Compliance and Asset
Management
77.1
77.8
77.1
Revenue and Operations
42.3
41.8
42.3
Total Appropriations
119.4
119.6
119.4
ONRR
FY2013 House
Comm.
Report
The House committee did not support the Administration’s proposed $4.00 per acre fee on new
nonproducing Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and onshore leases or the proposed repeal of
royalty relief provisions (§344) in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.73 The Administration had
similar proposals in both areas in FY2012, although neither was included in the FY2012
appropriations law.
The timeliness of issuing permits for development has been an issue for Congress. For instance,
in FY2012 the House Appropriations Committee expressed concern over delays in issuing OCS
exploration and development permits, and encouraged BOEM to issue permits in a timely and
consistent manner while ensuring safety and environmental protection.74 The conferees on the
FY2012 appropriations bill further expressed that the highest priority for BSEE was “ensuring
safety and prompt consideration of permits,” and that applications for permits to drill “should be
processed with all due speed.”75 The Administration asserts that the review of deepwater permit
applications has taken longer as a result of the Deepwater Horizon incident and additional
informational requirements (e.g., pertaining to environmental reviews).
For ONRR, the House committee would have funded its two major programs—compliance and
asset management (CAM) and revenue and operations—at FY2012 levels: $77.1 million and
$42.3 million, respectively. The Administration requested slightly more for CAM ($77.8 million)
and slightly less for revenue and operations ($41.8 million). CAM is implementing reforms in the
way the agency uses data mining to detect missing or inaccurate royalty payments and implement
its risk-based compliance strategy to ensure proper revenue collections. The revenue and
operations program continues to phase-out the royalty-in-kind program (RIK, wherein payments
are made in fuel rather than in cash) and replace it with a royalty-in-value program and strengthen
the auditing and oversight functions of ONRR.
Offshore (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing
Issues not directly tied to specific funding accounts remain controversial and typically are
debated during consideration of the annual Interior appropriations bills.76 Two issues have been
73
These provisions provide for royalty-free production up to specified volumes of oil and gas below specified price
thresholds.
74
H.Rept. 112-151 on H.R. 2584, p. 39.
75
H.Rept. 112-331 on H.R. 2055, pp. 1060-1061.
76
The issues discussed in this section also are being addressed by Congress outside the appropriations process, for
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
33
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
the focus of recent debates: moratoria (areas off limits to leasing), and the audit and compliance
program.
Moratoria
Oil and gas development moratoria in the OCS along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, parts of
Alaska, and parts of the Gulf of Mexico had been in place since 1982, as a result of public laws
and executive orders of the President. On July 14, 2008, President Bush lifted the executive
moratoria, which included planning areas along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. On September 30,
2008, moratoria provisions in annual appropriations laws expired, potentially opening these areas
for oil and gas leasing activity.
Whether to lift the remaining moratorium in the eastern Gulf of Mexico under the Gulf of Mexico
Energy Security Act (GOMESA) remains controversial. This law placed nearly all of the eastern
Gulf under a leasing moratorium until 2022, and contained revenue-sharing provisions for
selected coastal states. Congressional proposals to lift the moratorium are supported by some as
an attempt to increase domestic oil and gas supply. Others favor continuing the moratorium due to
concerns about adverse economic and environmental impacts of development, and note that there
already are several thousand leases in the central and western parts of the Gulf of Mexico that are
unexplored or in development and could potentially yield significant oil and natural gas. The
2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has been a factor in the debate.77
On December 1, 2010, the Obama Administration announced its Revised Program (RP) for the
remainder of the 2007-2012 OCS Leasing Program. Among other components, the RP eliminates
five Alaskan lease sales (sales 209, 212, 214, 217 and 221) that had been contemplated in the
current lease program. Further, the Obama Administration, under executive authority, withdrew
the North Aleutian Basin Planning Area from oil and gas leasing activity until June 30, 2017. On
June 28, 2012, the Administration submitted its proposed final five-year OCS oil and gas leasing
program for 2012-2017, which excludes all three Atlantic and all four Pacific Coast planning
areas at least through 2017. Three planning areas in Alaska (Cook Inlet, Chukchi, and Beaufort
Sea) were included in the program for leasing. There are 15 lease sales included in the new
leasing program—12 in the Gulf of Mexico and three in Alaska. Since the 2010 Deepwater
Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, President Obama has cancelled the August 2010 lease
sale (215) and the Mid-Atlantic lease sale (220). The Obama Administration held lease sale 218
in the Western Gulf of Mexico on December 14, 2011. This was the first sale since the oil spill.
The final combined OCS sale (sale 216/222) of the 2007-2012 leasing program was held on June
20, 2012.78
(...continued)
instance, through legislation and in hearings by the authorizing committees.
77
For more information on the spill, see CRS Report RL33705, Oil Spills in U.S. Coastal Waters: Background and
Governance, by (name redacted).
78
Pending legislation seeks to replace the Administration’s proposed final leasing program with an alternative program.
For a comparison of the Administration’s proposal and pending legislation, see CRS Congressional Distribution
Memorandum, A Comparison of H.R. 6082 (as introduced July 9, 2012) and the Obama Administration Submission to
Congress Under Section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) (June 28, 2012), by (name redacted),
July 16, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
34
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
Audit and Compliance Program
A major challenge confronting ONRR is to ensure that its audit and compliance program is
consistently effective. Critics contend that less auditing and more focus on compliance review has
led to a less rigorous royalty collection system and thus a loss of revenue to the federal Treasury.
DOI’s Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) have made
recommendations to strengthen and improve administrative controls of the compliance and asset
management program, including adoption of a risk-based compliance approach.
Further, DOI established an independent panel, the Royalty Policy Committee (RPC), to review
the Mineral Leasing Program. The RPC offered over 100 recommendations to BOEM and ONRR
for improving the leasing program and auditing function. The review included an examination of
the RIK program, which grew from 41.5 million barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) in 2004 to 112
million BOE in 2007.79 GAO issued a report on September 26, 2008, concluding that the RIK
Program could be improved.80 After review of the RIK program, the Secretary of the Interior
announced its “phased-in termination.”81 The FY2013 House committee-reported bill, like the
Administration’s FY2013 request and the FY2012 appropriations law, reflected the
Administration’s plan to continue phasing out the RIK program.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement82
Concerns about the legacy of hazards resulting from decades of coal mining in the United States
led to the enactment of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA, P.L.
95-87).83 The act authorized the federal government to work with states and tribes to reclaim
abandoned coal mines, and regulate active coal mines to minimize environmental impacts during
mining and to reclaim affected lands and waters after mining. The act established the Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (commonly referred to as the Office of Surface
Mining or OSM) to administer these responsibilities, and created the Abandoned Mine
Reclamation Fund to provide a dedicated source of funds for reclaiming abandoned coal mines.
The fund is financed by fees on coal production that are used to issue payments to eligible coal
production states and tribes for implementing their reclamation programs. Amendments to
SMCRA in 200684 authorized these payments as mandatory appropriations, no longer subject to
discretionary appropriations. This mandatory funding constitutes the majority of OSM’s total
budget. Discretionary appropriations fund grants to states for the regulation of active coal mines,
and certain activities still administered by OSM that support the reclamation of abandoned mines.
79
The report of the panel, Mineral Revenue Collection from Federal and Indian Lands and the Outer Continental Shelf,
is available on the ONRR website at http://www.onrr.gov/laws_r_d/RoyPC/PDFDocs/RPCRMS1207.pdf.
80
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Oil and Gas Royalties: MMS’s Oversight of Its Royalty-in-Kind Program
Can Be Improved through Additional Use of Production Verification Data and Enhanced Reporting of Financial
Benefits and Costs, GAO-08-942R, September 26, 2008.
81
A news release announcing the termination of the program is on the DOI website at http://www.doi.gov/news/
09_News_Releases/091609.html.
82
For more information on OSM funding and activities, contact David Bearden at 7-.....
83
30 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq.
84
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act Amendments of 2006 were included in Title II, Division C, of P.L.
109-432, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006.
Congressional Research Service
35
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
The Administration proposed a total budget of $677.8 million for OSM in FY2013, $211.8
million (24%) less than the FY2012 level of $889.6 million.85 The decrease primarily was
attributed to the proposed termination of mandatory payments from the Abandoned Mine
Reclamation Fund to “certified” states that have reclaimed their “priority” coal sites,86 in order to
reserve funds for “noncertified” states with unmet coal reclamation needs. The termination of
these payments to certified states would be subject to the enactment of authorizing legislation.
Subsequently enacted legislation87 now limits mandatory payments to certified states to $15
million annually, but does not entirely eliminate these payments as the President had proposed.
Some Members and affected states had expressed concern about the impacts of the new funding
limitation on resources for mine reclamation, and potential effects on the funding formula for
certain payments to noncertified states which are linked in part to the amounts that certified states
receive.88 Section 142 of P.L. 112-175 reversed the potential effects on noncertified states but did
not repeal the limitation on funding for certified states. For the discretionary appropriations that
fund OSM, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $150.1 million for FY2013, $9.5
million (7%) more than the President’s request of $140.6 million, but nearly the same as the
FY2012 enacted appropriation. The decrease that the President had requested was attributed to a
proposed reduction in regulatory grants to states. Table 10 identifies the level of discretionary
appropriations for OSM broken out by activity.
Table 10. Appropriations for the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), FY2012-FY2013
($ in millions)
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement
FY2012
Approp.
FY2013
Request
FY2013 House
Comm. Report
Regulation and Technology
122.7
113.1
122.7
—Environmental Protection
91.8
81.9
91.8
—Technology Development and Transfer
14.5
14.6
14.5
—Financial Management
0.5
0.5
0.5
—Executive Direction
15.9
16.1
15.9
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund
27.4
27.5
27.4
—Environmental Restoration
9.5
9.4
9.4
—Technology Development and Transfer
3.5
3.6
3.5
—Financial Management
6.4
6.5
6.4
—Executive Direction
8.0
8.1
8.0
150.1
140.6
150.1
Total Appropriations
85
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Budget Justifications and
Performance Information for FY2013, “Total FY2013 Budget Request,” p. 6.
86
Sites are prioritized for reclamation based on the severity of the hazards. Under existing law, priority coal sites must
be reclaimed first before states and tribes can use Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund payments for other purposes.
87
Section 100125 of P.L. 112-141, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), enacted July 6,
2012.
88
Section 411(h)(4)(A) of SMCRA originally had linked the amounts of the payments that certified states receive to a
portion (but not all) of the funds that noncertified states receive for their Historic Coal Fund Distribution payments.
Congressional Research Service
36
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
The following sections discuss funding issues related to the regulation of active coal mines, the
existing Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund, a proposed parallel fund dedicated to the
reclamation of abandoned hardrock mines, and the proposed integration of certain OSM functions
within BLM.
Regulation of Active Coal Mines
Under Title V of SMCRA, OSM is responsible for developing the regulations for active coal
mines and may allow states and tribes to implement these federal regulations within their
respective jurisdictions.89 SMCRA authorizes OSM to approve state and tribal regulatory
programs that it determines are sufficient to assume these responsibilities, and to oversee their
implementation to ensure the adequacy of environmental protections. States with approved
regulatory programs are referred to as “primacy” states. Federal regulatory grants to primacy
states may cover up to 50% of the costs that a state or tribe incurs to operate its regulatory
program. States or tribes with primacy are responsible for permitting, inspection, and
enforcement of OSM’s regulations at active coal mines. OSM currently has granted regulatory
primacy to 24 states in which coal is produced, while OSM has retained regulatory primacy in
two states without approved programs, Tennessee and Washington. To date, there are no tribes
with regulatory primacy under SMCRA, and OSM regulates active coal mines on tribal lands.
For FY2013, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $122.7 million for OSM’s
Regulation and Technology account to support the regulation of active coal mines, an increase of
$9.7 million above the President’s request ($113.1 million), and the same as the FY2012 enacted
appropriation. The President had proposed a decrease below FY2012 within this account to
reduce federal regulatory grants to primacy states, and to reduce funding for OSM’s own
regulatory responsibilities in non-primacy states and on tribal lands. The Administration had
indicated that its requested reduction for federal regulatory grants was intended to encourage
primacy states to increase permit fees collected from mine operators, and that OSM similarly
would increase permit fees in non-primacy states and on tribal lands to offset its lower funding
level.
In its report on H.R. 6091, the House Appropriations Committee expressed its concern that
reducing federal regulatory grants to primacy states could impair their ability to continue their
regulatory role, if they were forced to rely more heavily upon increases in permit fees. The
committee restored funding for these grants to maintain the level of existing resources and help
primacy states avoid the need to raise fees on coal mine operators to pay their regulatory
expenses.90 The Administration had asserted the opposing view that current permit fees are lower
for the coal industry than other regulated industries and that increasing coal mining fees would
ensure more comparable treatment among industries, while reducing the reliance on federal
appropriations to regulate the coal industry. Subsequently, on March 26, 2013, OSM proposed to
increase coal mining permit fees on lands within its regulatory jurisdiction. Primacy states would
not be required to increase permit fees on lands within their respective jurisdictions, but would
have the discretion to do so in a similar manner.91 With respect to the state regulatory role, the
89
Other federal agencies also regulate certain aspects of active coal mining operations under other federal statutory
authorities, such as the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act. Also, states may enact their own
independent regulatory authorities.
90
H.Rept. 112-589 on H.R. 6091, p. 34.
91
78 Federal Register 18430-18444, March 26, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
37
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
House Appropriations Committee also did not approve the increase that the President had
requested within the Regulation and Technology account for increased inspections and enhanced
federal oversight of state regulatory programs. The committee expressed that states with primacy
under SMCRA should retain the principal role in regulating coal mining operations within their
respective jurisdictions, and that enhanced federal oversight beyond the current level was not
needed to ensure “the continued implementation of a protective regulatory framework.”92
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund
As originally enacted, Title IV of SMCRA established the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund to
support the reclamation of lands and waters affected by coal mining and processing that were
abandoned and left unreclaimed prior to the enactment of the statute on August 3, 1977, and for
which there is no continuing reclamation responsibility under other federal or state laws. The
fund is financed by a per-ton fee assessed on the production of coal in the United States. States
and tribes with lands on which coal is mined are eligible for payments from the fund to support
the reclamation of abandoned coal mines located within their respective jurisdictions. A total of
25 coal production states and three tribes are currently eligible.93
The 2006 amendments to SMCRA reauthorized the collection of coal production fees through
FY2021. Beginning in FY2008, the amendments authorized state and tribal payments from the
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund as mandatory appropriations. The amendments also altered
the formula for disbursing these funds to states and tribes to base the disbursements on coal
production. Mandatory payments also were authorized to support three United Mine Workers of
America retiree health benefit plans.94
The activities that continue to rely on discretionary appropriations from the Abandoned Mine
Reclamation Fund are limited to those administered by OSM, not implemented by states and
tribes. These activities currently include the evaluation of state and tribal reclamation programs,
technical assistance to states and tribes to enhance their reclamation programs, the management
of coal production fees that finance the fund, and federal watershed restoration projects at historic
coal sites that are not administered through the state programs. The House Appropriations
Committee recommended $27.4 million for these activities for FY2013, essentially level with
FY2012 and slightly lower than the President’s FY2013 request ($27.5 million).
The 2006 amendments were driven by concerns about fee collections surpassing discretionary
appropriations for a number of years, and the contention among western states that they were
bearing a disproportionate share of the reclamation expense because coal production had moved
westward over time, whereas the majority of the abandoned coal mines in need of reclamation are
located in eastern states. To address the disbursements of prior collections of fees that had
accumulated when the fund was subject to discretionary appropriations, the 2006 amendments
authorized a series of mandatory payments to states and tribes from the General Fund of the U.S.
Treasury. In total, these payments are to be equivalent to the balance of prior collections that had
92
Ibid.
For a listing of each eligible state and tribe, see OSM’s distribution of Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund payments
for FY2013 on the office’s website: http://www.osmre.gov/topic/grants/docs/FY13GrantDist.pdf.
94
These payments are financed with a combination of general Treasury funds and interest on the unexpended balance
of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund.
93
Congressional Research Service
38
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
not been appropriated as of the beginning of FY2008. The payments are to be made in seven
annual installments through FY2014.95
The 2006 amendments also established a process for OSM to “certify” states and tribes that have
reclaimed all of their priority coal sites. Certified states and tribes may use their payments for the
reclamation of other types of mining sites and other purposes.96 Four states and three tribes are
currently certified.97 Certified states and tribes receive their share of current reclamation fees
through equivalent Treasury payments that are made in lieu of disbursements from the
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund, which is now reserved for payments to noncertified states.
Certified states and tribes may use their in lieu Treasury payments of current fees for the
reclamation of other mineral mining or processing sites, and their in lieu Treasury payments of
pre-FY2008 balances for any purposes approved by their state legislatures or tribal councils (but
the impacts of mineral development are to receive priority).
The President’s FY2013 budget request included a legislative proposal to terminate reclamation
payments to certified states and tribes to reserve the funds for priority coal sites that are not
reclaimed in other states. The Administration included similar proposals in its FY2012 and
FY2011 budget requests, which were not enacted. The House Appropriations Committee
specified discretionary appropriations for reclamation for FY2013 but did not address the
President’s proposal to terminate these payments. Certified states and tribes have opposed the
termination of their reclamation payments, which would make coal production fees collected on
their lands unavailable to them for the reclamation of other types of abandoned mines (especially
hardrock mines) and other purposes. As noted earlier, Section 100125 of P.L. 112-141 did not
terminate these payments but amended the funding formula to limit them to $15 million annually.
The President’s FY2013 budget proposal also would cease the allocation of coal production fees
to noncertified states and tribes based on production, and instead would award the funds through
a competitive grant process to focus on the most hazardous sites, which would be subject to the
enactment of authorizing legislation. This proposal would reverse aspects of the 2006
amendments that were intended to ensure that each coal production state and tribe received a
certain portion of the fees collected on its lands and could use the funds for other purposes once
its priority coal sites were reclaimed.
Proposed Hardrock Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund
In conjunction with the Administration’s proposal to focus the use of coal production fees on the
reclamation of abandoned coal mines, the President’s FY2013 budget request included a related
legislative proposal to establish a fund dedicated to the reclamation of abandoned hardrock mines,
95
The balance of prior collections as of the beginning of FY2008 was $1.31 billion. As of the end of FY2012, OSM
has disbursed $934.9 million in five installments to eligible states and tribes, and $373.9 million remained available for
the last two installments in FY2013 and FY2014. See OSM’s distribution of Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund
payments for FY2013 on the office’s website: http://www.osmre.gov/topic/grants/docs/FY13GrantDist.pdf.
96
Certified states and tribes may not use their payments for the reclamation of mining sites that the Environmental
Protection Agency has placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), or designated under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act
(UMTRCA) that the Department of Energy administers. These exclusions are intended to prevent the overlap or
duplication of funds authorized under these federal statutes.
97
The four certified states are Louisiana, Montana, Texas, and Wyoming. The certified tribes are the Crow Tribe, Hopi
Tribe, and Navajo Nation.
Congressional Research Service
39
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
which would be subject to the enactment of authorizing legislation. A similar proposal was
included in the FY2012 budget request. The FY2013 proposal would have entailed levying fees
on the production of uranium and metallic hardock minerals in the United States beginning on
January 1, 2013. The fees would be used to finance a Hardrock Abandoned Mine Reclamation
Fund.98 BLM would be responsible for administering this fund and would award reclamation
grants on a competitive basis, with priority based on the severity of the hazards. Abandoned
hardrock mines on both public and private lands would be eligible. The Administration estimated
that the hardrock reclamation fees would generate a total of $1.8 billion in receipts from FY2014
through FY2022.99 OSM would not administer this fund, but possibly would provide some
supporting services through the proposed integration of certain functions within BLM. However,
the House Appropriations Committee opposed this integration in its report on H.R. 6091,
discussed below.
The Administration has stated that the proposed fund is intended to hold the hardrock mining
industry responsible for the reclamation of abandoned hardrock mines, just as the coal mining
industry currently is held responsible for the reclamation of abandoned coal mines. There also has
been some concern that the lack of a dedicated fund for hardrock mines has increased the reliance
on EPA Superfund appropriations to address abandoned sites. Opponents of the proposal have
expressed concerns about the potential impacts of the costs on the domestic hardrock mining
industry, associated employment, and competitiveness with foreign minerals production.
Proposed Integration of Certain OSM Functions within BLM
The Administration has been considering the consolidation of certain support functions of OSM
and BLM that serve parallel purposes, while maintaining the independence of these agencies with
respect to their separate statutory responsibilities. The House Appropriations Committee directed
that no additional funds be spent on studies to merge their respective functions and stated its
position that “the proposal offers little administrative savings when attempting to combine
functions of two statutorily created agencies.”100 Conferees on the FY2012 appropriations bill
also had expressed concern about the proposed integration.101
On October 26, 2011, the Secretary of the Interior had issued an order102 to integrate OSM within
BLM, which was to have become effective on December 1, 2011. The order had directed OSM
and BLM to develop a schedule by March 1, 2012, for implementation. It outlined the integration
of revenue collections, reclamation of abandoned mine lands, regulation of active mines, and
certain administrative support functions. On November 28, 2011, the Secretary issued a second
order103 suspending the effective date and directing OSM and BLM to prepare recommendations
for the Secretary by February 15, 2012, to address congressional and stakeholder concerns. OSM
and BLM issued their recommendations to the Secretary in a report released on February 15,
98
This proposed BLM fund would complement existing federal funds for the reclamation of uranium mill tailings sites
administered by the Department of Energy under UMTRCA. This statute addresses only certain uranium processing
sites, not uranium mines where the ores were extracted.
99
Office of Management and Budget, FY2013 Budget of the U.S. Government, Analytical Perspectives, p. 219.
100
H.Rept. 112-589 on H.R. 6091, p. 34.
101
H.Rept. 112-331 on H.R. 2055, p. 1062.
102
Secretarial Order No. 3315.
103
Secretarial Order No. 3316.
Congressional Research Service
40
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
2012.104 The report recommended the consolidation of certain support functions, while
maintaining the independence of OSM and BLM. It did not propose an effective date for the
consolidation of support functions, but instead had recommended that the Secretary issue a new
order to develop plans for implementation. The Secretary issued a new order on April 13, 2012,
directing the consolidation of certain support functions and resources of BLM, OSM, and certain
other Interior offices to gain efficiencies among similar functions, while keeping these agencies
and offices intact as separate entities.105
Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education106
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) provides and funds a variety of services to federally
recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and their members, and historically has
been the lead agency in federal dealings with tribes. Programs provided or funded through the
BIA include government operations, courts, law enforcement, fire protection, social programs,
roads, economic development, employment assistance, housing repair, irrigation, dams, Indian
rights protection, implementation of land and water settlements, and management of trust assets
(real estate and natural resources). Education programs are provided or funded by the Bureau of
Indian Education (BIE), a sister bureau to BIA.107
For FY2013, the bill reported by the House Appropriations Committee contained $2.57 billion for
the BIA and BIE. This was $41.4 million (1.6%) above the Administration’s request for FY2013
($2.53 billion) and $36.8 million (1.5%) above the FY2012 appropriation ($2.53 billion). In its
report, the committee expressed that increased funding reflected an intention “to meaningfully
address programs and policies that empower and improve the lives of American Indians and
Alaska Natives.”108 Table 11 identifies funding for BIA and BIE accounts. Selected topics and
programs related to the BIA and BIE are discussed below.
Table 11. Appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Bureau of
Education (BIE), FY2012-FY2013
($ in millions)
FY2012
Approp.
FY2013
Request
FY2013 House
Comm.
Report
2,367.7
2,379.4
2,404.7
—Tribal Government
519.3
529.2
531.4
—Human Services
136.4
135.2
135.2
—Trust - Natural Resources Management
157.2
162.1
162.1
Indian Affairs
Operation of Indian Programs
104
Report for the Secretary on the Proposed BLM/OSM Consolidation, February 15, 2012, available on Interior’s
website: http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=283745.
105
Secretarial Order No. 3320.
106
For more information on BIA funding, contact (name redacted) at 7-...., coordinator for BIA appropriations
issues. CRS analyst (name redacted), and legislative attorney Jane Smith, also contributed to this section.
107
In August 2006, the BIA’s administrative office for its education programs was removed from the BIA, made a
parallel bureau under DOI’s Assistant Secretary–Indian Affairs, and renamed the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE).
108
H.Rept. 112-589 on H.R. 6091, p. 8.
Congressional Research Service
41
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
Approp.
FY2013
Request
FY2013 House
Comm.
Report
—Trust - Real Estate Services
126.8
127.8
127.8
—Education (Bureau of Indian Education,
BIE)
795.5
796.1
810.1
——Elementary and Secondary Programs
644.8
645.9
659.8
——Post Secondary Programs
128.7
131.8
131.8
——Education Management
22.0
18.4
18.4
—Public Safety and Justice
346.2
353.9
361.9
——Law Enforcement
321.9
328.4
335.9
——Tribal Courts
23.4
24.6
25.1
—Community and Economic Development
34.8
34.3
35.3
—Executive Direction and Administrative
Services
251.5
239.6
239.6
0.0
1.3
1.3
Construction
123.6
105.9
117.1
—Education
70.8
52.9
62.1
—Public Safety and Justice
11.3
11.3
11.3
—Resources Management
33.0
32.7
32.7
Indian Land and Water Claim Settlements
and Miscellaneous Payments to Indians
32.8
36.3
36.3
Indian Guaranteed Loan Program Account
7.1
5.0
10.0
2,531.3
2,526.6
2,568.1
FY2012
Indian Affairs
—Indian Arts and Crafts Board
Total Appropriations
Note: The table does not list all activities and subactivities relevant for Indian appropriations. As such, individual
lines do not necessarily sum to the totals listed.
Contract Support
Since enactment of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA; P.L.
93-638), the adequacy of contract support costs has been a major issue for Congress, the BIA, and
tribes. Under the ISDEAA, tribes contract with the DOI so they can provide services that the
federal government otherwise would have provided. ISDEAA requires the DOI to enter contracts
with all qualifying tribes and also to pay full contract support costs. Contract support costs are
used by tribes to cover the expenses of administering their self-deter
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.